⬚ figure
Assembled by OpenPublica from the documents it serves for this government. Each section below is a separate publication by the government, and its page numbers are that section's own. We have pinned 1 slot here, so an element absent from this file may simply not have been reviewed yet.
⬚ figure
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan is the comprehensive plan for the future of Cleveland and its neighborhoods.1 It seeks to create great neighborhoods by creating “connections” between people and places and opportunities.
Creating connections means more than developing buildings. It means developing people and developing communities as well. It means linking the “physical” and the “social” in order to create a community that is truly viable and sustainable.
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan proposes not only to build houses but to build neighborhoods – vibrant neighborhoods, safe neighborhoods. It is plan that proposes not only to create shopping centers but to create mixed-use “town centers” that can become the focus of community life. And it is a plan that proposes not only to create jobs but to make job opportunities available to all Clevelanders.
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan lays out a practical vision to achieve its goals through a strategy that builds on the city’s unique assets and the assets in each of its diverse neighborhoods.
⬚ figure
*The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan replaces the Cleveland Civic Vision 2000 Citywide Plan as Cleveland’s adopted “general plan.” It was prepared through a process that engaged thousands of Clevelanders in community meetings and focus groups. The plan is also part of a broader initiative that incorporates plans for Cleveland’s waterfront and downtown. ↩
⬚ figure
Cleveland 2020...
...a national leader in biomedical technology and information technology – with connections to the Cleveland Clinic, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University, NASA and other world-class innovators
...a center for advanced manufacturing – a national model for connecting new technologies to traditional industries
...a community with connections to good jobs for all residents and connections to the education and training demanded by those jobs
...a city with an accessible lakefront and riverfront, connected to waterfront neighborhoods and unique recreation opportunities
...a city of vibrant urban neighborhoods, with mixed-use districts and live-work spaces that attract creative and entrepreneurial people from across the region and the nation
...a community where racial, ethnic and social diversity is not simply tolerated but is embraced and celebrated in every neighborhood as one of Cleveland's greatest assets
...a city known for safe neighborhoods that are family-friendly and senior- friendly, connecting all residents to the conveniences of urban living
...a mecca for the arts and culture, with world-renowned institutions like the Cleveland Orchestra and the Cleveland Museum of Art joined by a vital local arts scene and public art in neighborhoods throughout the city
...a model for healthy living, with walkable neighborhoods, bike routes, ecological design, and community partnerships to provide recreation opportunities to Clevelanders of all ages, incomes and ability levels
...a pioneer in improving public education through partnerships to provide resources based on the needs of students rather than the wealth of communities
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan presents this vision of Cleveland's future, along with the actions that can be taken today to ensure that the vision will become reality.
⬚ figure
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan is more than a vision for Cleveland's future. It is also a "kit of tools" for use in implementing the plan, this year, next year and each year during the life of the plan. Among the plan's tools are:
⬚ figure
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan is a plan about connections between people and places and opportunities. A great city is not merely a collection of buildings. It is a place of connections. At its simplest, a connection can be a bike path that connects a neighborhood to the waterfront or a bus line that connects people to jobs. At its most fundamental, a connection can be a shared space – an urban plaza, a neighborhood park, a community institution or even a coffee shop – that connects people to one another in a way that creates a sense of "place" and a sense of belonging – that elusive but enduring thing that we call "community."
Other connections link people to the diverse opportunities available in a city – opportunities that for some city residents are so close but yet have remained just out of reach. These are connections to education, social services, jobs, health care, shopping, entertainment, the arts and culture. Finally, in an economy that is increasingly regional and global, there are the ever-more important connections between the neighborhood, the city, the region and the world.
⬚ figure
Great neighborhoods and great cities are vibrant places that draw people to them because of the wonderful things they have to offer – because of their "assets."
Cleveland has assets that make it the envy of cities everywhere – from its location on a "great lake," to its unparalleled national transportation access, to its world-renowned cultural, medical and educational institutions.
Every neighborhood in Cleveland has its unique assets as well. Some of these assets are readily apparent, like the West Side Market in Ohio City, Karamu House in Fairfax, or the family-oriented housing in neighborhoods like Lee-Harvard and Kamm’s Corners. Other assets are somewhat hidden – overlooked even by many local residents – and need to be enhanced and publicized, like League Park in Hough or the Big Creek Valley in Old Brooklyn.
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan is an "asset-based" plan that seeks to build on the unique assets of Cleveland and each of its neighborhoods as the foundation for renewed growth and prosperity.
regenerating land & buildings
⬚ figure
Almost any Clevelander can see the city's challenges. The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan asks Clevelanders to look beyond the challenges, to view the city and its neighborhoods through a new lens, bringing into focus the incredible opportunities for rebirth that are now blurred by the shadow of the city's challenges. "Cleveland re-imagined" can be a city where challenges have been transformed into opportunities.
⬚ figure
More and more Americans are tiring of "sprawl." They are tired of living in communities with so little character that it is difficult to distinguish one from another. They are tired of living in communities where there is nowhere to walk. Many long for the time when neighbors gathered together at town centers – shopping, working, learning, playing, praying and living, as members of a community.
Ironically, developers are now trying to recreate the traditional urban town center in the midst of freeway-dominated suburbs. Although these developments succeed in some respects, they also testify to the fact that "there's nothing like the real thing!" Cleveland has the real thing – architecturally distinctive, walkable, mixed-use "places" that grew organically from roots that tap deep into the lifeblood of the city.
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan advocates that Cleveland enhance these mixed-use urban districts – connecting them to public transit and bikeways – and preserve their distinctive architecture as its principal strategy for creating competitive places in every city neighborhood.
⬚ figure
With each passing year, people are becoming more mobile. Technology and income have freed many Americans, particularly the most talented and best educated, to "leave home" and follow their desires to places that offer what they seek in employment and lifestyle. "Communities of choice" for these individuals have replaced "communities of necessity."
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan recognizes that if Cleveland is to grow and prosper in the 21st century, Cleveland must "reverse the brain drain" and become competitive in attracting and retaining the mobile individual. Cleveland and its neighborhoods must become communities of choice.
Just as important to Cleveland's future, however, is providing more choices for those Clevelanders who today have too few choices. This was the "mantra" of Cleveland's groundbreaking 1975 Policy Planning Report. Sadly, twenty years later, the need is just as great. Far too many Clevelanders remain trapped in "communities of necessity" – trapped by poverty, unemployment, discrimination, disability and inadequate education. The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan recognizes that Cleveland will never achieve true greatness until all Clevelanders are able to live in "communities of choice."
⬚ figure
celebrating Cleveland's diversity
Recent statistics show that America's most prosperous cities are those that attract talented individuals of all races, nationalities and lifestyles. These are cities where diversity is welcomed and celebrated. Cleveland is a city with a rich history of diversity. The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan proposes that Cleveland fully embrace its diversity, cultivate it, nurture it and market it as a key element of its revitalization strategy.
Cleveland also offers a tremendous diversity of housing types, from single-family to townhouse to "live-work" to high-rise apartments. While many families with children seek opportunities to own single-family houses, many young professionals and seniors are seeking quality rental housing. As the central city of a major metropolitan area, Cleveland can offer the diversity of housing necessary to be truly competitive in attracting all segments of the population.
Finally, Cleveland's size enables it to offer a diversity of opportunities for employment, education, worship, recreation, shopping and culture. Cleveland's challenge is to make these opportunities available to the all segments of its diverse population, regardless of race, nationality, income, age or disability.
diversity
building for today and tomorrow
⬚ figure
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan seeks to re-create Cleveland as a city that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. In other words, the plan seeks to create a “sustainable” Cleveland.
A sustainable Cleveland is a city that conserves natural resources so that they are plentiful in the future. A sustainable Cleveland is a city that provides educational and employment opportunities to current residents in order to ensure economic prosperity for future generations. A sustainable Cleveland is city that provides opportunities for healthful living to all citizens.
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan proposes to achieve its goals for sustainability through actions such as the following:
⬚ figure
Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
Introduction.......................................................................................................................... Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................
Population ........................................................................................................................... Housing................................................................................................................................ Retail ................................................................................................................................... Economic Development........................................................................................................ Recreation & Open Space.................................................................................................... Sustainability ........................................................................................................................ Arts & Culture....................................................................................................................... Education & Community Facilities ........................................................................................ Transportation & Transit ....................................................................................................... Safety .................................................................................................................................. Preservation ......................................................................................................................... Opportunity & Equity.............................................................................................................
Introduction.......................................................................................................................... Land Use Categories ............................................................................................................ “Smart Zoning”...................................................................................................................... Land Use..............................................................................................................................
Cudell .................................................................................................................................. Jefferson .............................................................................................................................. Kamm's Corners ................................................................................................................. Puritas-Longmead ................................................................................................................ Riverside .............................................................................................................................. West Boulevard ....................................................................................................................
Brooklyn Centre ................................................................................................................... Clark-Fulton ......................................................................................................................... Detroit-Shoreway ................................................................................................................. Ohio City ............................................................................................................................. Old Brooklyn ........................................................................................................................
Stockyards ............................................................................................................................ Tremont .................................................................................................................................
Planning District 3 Central ................................................................................................................................... Downtown .............................................................................................................................. Goodrich-Kirtland Park ........................................................................................................... Industrial Valley ...................................................................................................................... North Broadway ...................................................................................................................... South Broadway ...................................................................................................................... Planning District 4 Corlett ..................................................................................................................................... Kinsman ................................................................................................................................. Lee-Miles ............................................................................................................................... Mt. Pleasant ........................................................................................................................... Union-Miles ............................................................................................................................ Woodland Hills ........................................................................................................................
Planning District 5 Buckeye-Shaker ..................................................................................................................... Fairfax .................................................................................................................................... Hough ..................................................................................................................................... St. Clair-Superior .................................................................................................................... University ................................................................................................................................
Planning District 6 Euclid-Green ........................................................................................................................... Forest Hills ............................................................................................................................. Glenville ................................................................................................................................. North Collinwood ..................................................................................................................... South Collinwood .....................................................................................................................
Glossary
CITY OF CLEVELAND , Mayor
CLEVELAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Robert N. Brown, Director Fred Collier, Citywide Plan Project Manager
CITYWIDE PLAN STAFF Michael Bosak Kelley Britt Martin Cader George Cantor Marka Fields Kris Lucskay Claire Posius
CONTRIBUTING STAFF Scott Frantz, capital improvements plan Debbie Berry, lakefront planning Linda Henrichsen, downtown planning Maurice Ruelens, web design Susanne DeGennaro, planning James Danek, planning
ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS Dennis Dooley, editing KSU Urban Design Center, graphic design CWRU Poverty Center, demographic analysis Chris Ronayne, Director, 2002-04
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Anthony Coyne, Chairperson David Bowen Joseph Cimperman, City Council Lillian Kuri Larry Lumpkin Gloria Jean Pinckney Reverend Edward Small
FUNDING The Cleveland Foundation The George Gund Foundation
Special thanks for the contributions of the Cleveland Neighborhood Development Coalition and all its member organizations, Cleveland City Council, Neighborhood Progress, and all the departments of Cleveland City government and the several County and regional agencies who contributed to the preparation of this plan.
This plan is dedicated to the memory of Richard A. Shatten for his extraordinary vision and leadership in advancing planning and economic development in Cleveland and its region.
Steering Committee Bobbie Reichtell, Project Chair Vickie Johnson, Project Co-Chair
⬚ figure
Cleveland City Planning Commission 601 Lakeside Avenue, Room 501 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 (216) 664-2210 http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us/
July 2007
CITY OF CLEVELAND Frank G. Jackson, Mayor
CLEVELAND CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Robert Brown, Director Freddy Collier Jr., Citywide Plan Project Manager
CITYWIDE PLAN STAFF Michael Bosak Kelly Britt Martin Cader George Cantor James Danek Marka Fields Kristofer Lucksay Claire Posius
CONTRIBUTING STAFF Scott Frantz, Capital Improvements Plan Debbie Berry, Lakefront Planning Linda Henrichsen, Downtown Planning Maurice Ruelens, Web Design Susan DeGennaro, Planning
ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTORS Dennis Dooley, Editing KSU Urban Design Center, Graphic Design CWRU Poverty Center, Demographic Analysis City Architecture, Plan Mapping Chris Ronayne, Director, 2002-2004
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION Anthony Coyne, Chairperson David Bowen Joseph Cimperman, City Council Lillian Kuri Lawrence Lumpkin Gloria Jean Pinkney Norman Krumholz
FUNDING The Cleveland Foundation The George Gund Foundation
Special thanks for the contributions of the Cleveland Neighborhood Development Coalition and all its member organizations, Cleveland City Council, Neighborhood Progress, Inc, and all the departments of Cleveland City government, Cuyahoga County government and regional agencies that contributed to the preparation of this plan.
This plan is dedicated to the memory of Richard A. Shatten for his extraordinary vision and leadership in advancing planning and economic development in Cleveland and the region.
⬚ figure
The Comprehensive Plan..................................................................................................1 Evolution of a Civic Vision...............................................................................................2 Connecting Cleveland.......................................................................................................3
Introduction......................................................................................................................4 Strengths...........................................................................................................................4 Challenges.........................................................................................................................6
The Vision.........................................................................................................................8 Guiding Principles............................................................................................................9 A Neighborhood-Based Plan...........................................................................................10 Implementation.................................................................................................................11
Housing............................................................................................................................13 Retail................................................................................................................................15 Economic Development....................................................................................................17 Recreation and Open Space..............................................................................................19 Community Services..........................................................................................................21 Safety................................................................................................................................23 Transportation and Infrastructure......................................................................................25 Arts and Culture...............................................................................................................27 Sustainability....................................................................................................................29 Preservation......................................................................................................................31
⬚ figure
What is the measure of a great city? The height of its skyscrapers? The size of its convention center? The number of Fortune 500 companies within its borders? The records of its sports teams? Although each of these can contribute to greatness, the ultimate measure of a city's greatness is the quality of life it offers to its citizens.
A great city connects its citizens to great choices in housing, education, employment, services, shopping, entertainment and culture as well as to opportunities to live in neighborhoods that are safe, secure and vibrant. A great city truly can be a place that nurtures the body, the mind and the spirit of those who choose to make the city home.
Just as importantly, a great city is a "city of choice and of choices" not just for its most privileged but also for those who have been denied access to many of the pathways that can lead to success and fulfillment in life.
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan is a new tool in Cleveland's climb to become a city of choice – a city that connects people and places and opportunities. This Summary introduces the plan and highlights its citywide recommendations. The full plan treats these citywide issues in greater detail, presents a block-by-block "future land use map," and focuses attention on each of Cleveland's 36 neighborhoods. [The complete plan is available online at http://planning.city.cleveland.oh.us.]
Cleveland's City Charter (in Section 76-2) directs the City Planning Commission to "make and adopt a general plan for the development and improvement of the city." This "general plan," more commonly known as a "comprehensive plan," serves as a blueprint or a roadmap for development and revitalization activities in the City.
The comprehensive plan establishes an overarching vision of the City's future, typically looking out at least ten years, and provides guidance on development-related decisions that must be made on a day-to-day basis. Although some of a plan's recommendations will occur quickly, it is important to understand that other recommendations will occur only when market conditions are right or when necessary funding becomes available. Given this limited availability of public funds and the limited availability of land, the comprehensive plan is an essential tool in ensuring that the City makes the best use of scarce resources and in preventing the City from pursuing policies or supporting projects that work at cross-purposes.
⬚ figure
CLEVELAND CIVIC VISION 2000 CITYWIDE PLAN
Between 1950 and 1990, Cleveland lost nearly half of its population and more than half of its jobs in manufacturing, historically the city's top job-producing sector. The concurrent increase in urban sprawl left behind a host of problems including vacant property, unemployment and contaminated land. As these challenges became increasingly evident, so too did the lack of a comprehensive strategy to address them and to take advantage of the emerging market for redevelopment.
Cleveland’s Civic Vision 2000 Plan, completed in 1990, confronted these challenges by presenting a vision to re-structure Cleveland as a smaller but more viable city. The plan fostered the concentration of retail businesses in strategically located “neighborhood town centers.” The plan also facilitated creative re-use of excess industrial and commercial land, a resurgence in residential development, new industrial parks near freeway interchanges, and increased attention to urban design issues.
Although Civic Vision, in many respects, put Cleveland back on track, it has been aptly observed, “even if you are on the right track, you will get run over if you just sit there.”1
The 21st century presents Cleveland with challenges and opportunities that were not fully anticipated in 1990. Among the most pressing is the accelerating shift toward a knowledge-based economy – both a challenge and an opportunity for a city struggling to educate its children, yet rich in institutions of higher education and medical innovation. Just as significant are new opportunities to create competitive, mixed-use urban communities, fueled by changing demographics and changing lifestyles.
The redevelopment successes of the 90’s made it increasingly evident to Clevelanders that physical development is not enough, as debilitating poverty persisted in the shadows of new buildings rising across the urban landscape. Unaddressed social needs have a way of undoing the best-laid plans of architects and planners. It is clear that “place-based” strategies addressing land use and physical development must be coupled with “people-based” strategies that address people’s needs for connections to education, jobs, services, recreation and the arts, as well as the need for “connectedness” to neighbors and to a supportive community.
Cleveland, however, is a resilient city that has the ability to use the assets it built during its peak years to re-invent itself as a competitive place to live and do business for generations to come.
Will Rogers, early 20th century American humorist ↩
⬚ figure
The theme of the new Citywide Plan is "connections." The plan is premised on the understanding that a great city is not merely a collection of buildings, but it is a place of connections – connections between people and places and opportunities. At its simplest, a connection can be a bike path that connects a neighborhood to the waterfront or a bus line that connects people to jobs. At its most fundamental, a connection can be a shared space – an urban plaza, a neighborhood park, a community institution or even a coffee shop – that connects people to one another in a way that creates a sense of "place" and a sense of belonging – that elusive but enduring thing that we call "community."
Other essential connections link people to the diverse opportunities available in a city – opportunities that for some city residents are so close but yet have remained just out of reach. These are connections to education, social services, jobs, health care, shopping, entertainment, the arts and culture – the full array of opportunities and resources that only a large metropolitan area can provide. In this sense, the Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan is a plan that connects the "physical" and the "social" to create communities that are truly viable and sustainable.
⬚ figure
As technology continues to make the world a smaller place, people and businesses have never been so mobile. Gone are the days when parents could expect their children to grow up and remain close to home, and gone too are the days when communities could expect their hometown stores and businesses to remain as fixtures for a lifetime. For Cleveland to grow and prosper in the 21st century, Cleveland must find new ways to compete in attracting residents and businesses, not just in competition with its suburbs, but also in competition with other metropolitan areas across the nation and the world.
How does Cleveland rank against other U.S. cities and metropolitan areas? Frankly assessing Cleveland’s deficiencies and aggressively building on its strengths is a prerequisite for Cleveland’s renewed success. It cannot be denied that Cleveland has fallen from the heights it had reached when it was the nation’s 5th largest city, with rapid job growth and a school system that was the envy of the region and the nation. Cleveland, however, is a resilient city that has the ability to use the assets it built during its peak years to re-invent itself as a competitive place to live and do business for generations to come.
Cleveland's strengths range from the inherent advantage of its location on Lake Erie to the cultural and civic assets it developed when it was one of the nation's very largest cities to the newly developing assets flowing from the innovations of its medical and educational institutions. More specifically, Cleveland's principal strengths relative to other U.S. cities and regions include the following.
Metropolitan Population. Cleveland is the central city of the 16th largest metropolitan area in the nation, making Cleveland a major economic market.
Downtown Population. The population of downtown Cleveland, although still relatively small, increased by 1/3 between 1990 and 2000, one of the largest gains recorded among major U.S. cities.
Medical Innovation. Cleveland is home to the Cleveland Clinic, consistently ranked as the nation’s top cardiac center, and University Hospitals, featuring one of the nation’s top-ranked pediatric hospitals.
⬚ figure
Cleveland’s institutions of higher learning have become increasingly important assets for economic development. [Peter B. Lewis Building at Case Western Reserve University]
Higher Education. Cleveland is home to Case Western Reserve University, the only Ohio institution ranked among the nation’s top 50 universities, and Cleveland State University, featuring one of the nation’s top ten colleges of urban affairs.
Information Technology. Cleveland has been recognized as a national leader in creating the “ultra-broadband” network needed to fuel information technology business development.
Waterfronts. The shorelines of Lake Erie and the banks of the Cuyahoga River and its tributaries give Cleveland unparalleled opportunities for waterfront recreation.
Water. Lake Erie gives Cleveland a supply of fresh water – supporting both manufacturing and residential development – that is the envy of cities across the nation, particularly in regions where fresh water is a scarce and precious commodity.
Air. Cleveland’s airport system, including Cleveland Hopkins International and Burke Lakefront Airports, represents Ohio’s premier airline passenger and corporate general aviation options, respectively. Both are powerful local and regional economic engines while providing strategic and critical access to the world economy for Cleveland and Northeast Ohio.
Location and Accessibility. Cleveland is centrally located in the most populous region of the United States. In 2004, Cleveland was ranked first in the Midwest and fourth in the nation as a location for “logistics management,” with Cleveland’s interstate highway access cited as its top-ranking asset. In the most recent annual study of traffic congestion across the nation, the University of Texas ranks Cleveland 73rd in delays caused by congestion – making Cleveland one of the most accessible metropolitan areas in the United States
Neighborhood Institutions. Cleveland is a city known nationally for the quantity and quality of its neighborhood organizations, including community development corporations that combine grassroots connections with technical skills to create unique capabilities for revitalizing neighborhoods.
Philanthropic Support. Cleveland benefits from unusually strong philanthropic support from the non-profit and corporate sectors, including the Cleveland Foundation, the nation’s oldest and second largest community foundation and the model for community foundations worldwide.
⬚ figure
Five decades of population loss in Cleveland have left a legacy of abandoned houses, particularly in near east side and near west side neighborhoods.
The Brookings Institution analyzed data from the 2000 U.S. Census for Cleveland and 22 other cities. That analysis leaves no doubt that Cleveland faces serious challenges in creating a quality of life and an economic climate competitive with that found in its peer cities. Among the most significant findings in the Brookings analysis are the following.
Population. Cleveland is now the 33rd largest city in America (in 2000), after having peaked as the 5th largest city in America in 1920 and having held onto a position in America's top ten most populous cities until 1970.
Income. The median income of households in the City of Cleveland grew during the 1990s but ranks third lowest among the 100 largest cities in America.
Poverty. The poverty rate in Cleveland declined in the 1990s but still ranked third highest among the 23 target cities in the 2000 U.S. Census. Cleveland has the second-highest black and Hispanic poverty rates of the 23 target cities in the Brookings analysis.
Education. The percentage of Cleveland adults holding bachelor's degrees is fifth lowest among the 100 largest cities. Cleveland has the fourth highest share of older teens who left high school without a diploma.
Employment. At the time of the 2000 U.S. Census survey, Cleveland had the highest unemployment rate among the 23 target cities.
Immigration. Cleveland had the lowest foreign-born population share among the 23 cities studied by the Brookings Institution. In addition, only one in six Cleveland residents arrived within the last five years, giving Cleveland the sixth lowest share of "new arrivals" among the 23 target cities.
College Students. Cleveland has the second smallest university student population among the 23 target cities.
Economically Dependent Population. Seventy children and seniors are being supported by every 100 of Cleveland's working-age adults – the second highest percentage of economically dependent population found among the 23 target cities.
Households and Families. Compared to the other cities, Cleveland has a relatively small married-couple family population and a large single-parent family population.
⬚ figure
The loss of over 150,000 manufacturing jobs has left Cleveland with the challenge of finding productive re-use for abandoned industrial buildings. [near East 55th and Central Avenue]
Segregation. Although the proportion of non-white population in Cleveland is roughly the same as the average in the 23 cities studied by the Brookings Institution, segregation of blacks from whites and of blacks from Hispanics, however, is far greater in Cleveland, with Cleveland ranking the 8th most segregated among the 23 cities.
Jobs in Manufacturing. The percentage of Cleveland workers employed in manufacturing – a sector of the economy that has experienced significant job losses – is nearly double the average for the 23 target cities.
Job Location. Only four of the 23 target cities have a smaller percentage of their working residents employed inside the city's boundaries than is the case in Cleveland. Over half of all commutes in the Cleveland metropolitan area begin and end in the suburbs.
Age of Housing Stock. Half of Cleveland's housing units were built before World War II – the second highest percentage among the 23 target cities.
NOTE: The 23 cities included in the analysis by the Brookings Institution area as follows (in order of population): New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Dallas, San Antonio, Detroit, Indianapolis, Columbus, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Baltimore, Boston, Washington, Seattle, Denver, Portland, Cleveland, Kansas City, Atlanta, Oakland, Miami, Newark
⬚ figure
What kind of place will Cleveland be in the year 2020? The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan presents a vision of Cleveland as a community that has learned how to make the most of its strengths and has re-positioned itself as …..
⬚ figure
THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES
In crafting its vision, the Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan is guided by the following principles:
These are the principles that underlie the plan and are incorporated into its goals, polices and recommendations for the City and for each of its neighborhoods. These principles will also inform and guide future actions on planning and development issues that emerge in the years after the plan's adoption.
Planning Districts 1 – 6 and Neighborhood Areas*
⬚ figure
*Neighborhood areas are known as “Statistical Planning Areas” (SPAs)
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan is built on a foundation of plans created by neighborhood residents and stakeholders.* These grassroots plans are the building blocks for the Citywide Plan, firmly grounding the plan in the reality experienced by those who live and work in each neighborhood. By connecting neighborhood-based plans to a citywide planning context, Cleveland’s Citywide Plan is able to address neighborhood-level issues with policies that require a citywide approach. Just as importantly, the integration of neighborhood-based plans into the Citywide Plan makes it possible for the plan to address neighborhood issues with a degree of detail not typically seen in a citywide general plan.
In crafting and presenting its vision, the Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan organizes the City around clusters of neighborhoods, rather than wards, as was the case with the plan’s predecessor, Civic Vision 2000. This neighborhood-based structure allows that plan to focus holistically on each City neighborhood as a building block of the larger plan. In order to consider the interaction between neighborhoods, the plan then groups 36 Cleveland neighborhoods (also known as Statistical Planning Areas) into six “districts,” which closely correspond to the City’s six Police Districts and Community Relations Districts.
Connecting Cleveland 2020 devotes a separate chapter to each of these six planning districts. Within each district chapter, the plan draws a portrait of each of the district’s neighborhoods, identifying the assets and opportunities that characterize that neighborhood. Issues that transcend neighborhood boundaries are discussed at the district level.
*Copies of many of these neighborhood plans can be viewed through electronic links on the web-based version of the Citywide Plan.
⬚ figure
Zoning is a key tool for implementing recommendations of the Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan.
It has been said, only partly in jest, "to plan is human, to implement is divine." Plans that fail to produce results are, in fact, so common that the phrase "plans that sit on the shelf" has become a part of our vocabulary. To avoid this fate, the Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan has been designed to "jumpstart" its implementation by incorporating implementation strategies and capital improvement recommendations into the plan itself.
No plan, however, can implement itself. Implementation of the Connecting Cleveland plan will require the coordinated efforts of all segments of City government and, critically, a precedent-setting degree of regional cooperation. Many of the tools necessary to implement the plan are already in place, but some of these tools are outdated and need to be re-thought and re-configured if they are to be effective in realizing the emerging vision for Cleveland’s future. An effective implementation strategy for the Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan needs to include the following components.
Marketing. Cleveland is a community rich in assets – from its location on a Great Lake to the excellence of its cultural life and from its national transportation connections to its affordable cost of living. Effectively marketing these and other assets can attract businesses and residents to Cleveland without an over-reliance on financial incentives that deprive the City and its schools of the revenues required to provide first-class services.
Neighborhood Connections. One means of improving the quality of life in Cleveland’s neighborhoods is to view each neighborhood holistically – with the goal of better coordinating and focusing the multitude of governmental and private services that are provided to that neighborhood.
Zoning. Innovative zoning regulations and an updating of the City’s zoning map are core components in implementing the Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan. That process has already begun and includes creation of the City’s first research district, first live-work district, first pedestrian-oriented retail district, and the City’s first zoning district that mandates mixed-use, multi-story development – each designed to implement aspects of the plan’s vision. Along with the zoning initiatives are design guidelines established to ensure that new development enhances the character of Cleveland’s neighborhoods and retail districts.
⬚ figure
Neighborhood-based plans form the building blocks for the Citywide Plan's future land use map. Specialized zoning districts are being used in implementing the plan.
Capital Improvements. The Citywide Plan identifies capital improvement projects that can be catalysts for the plan's development recommendations – such as a new road or a new transit connection proposed to provide improved access for economic development. In addition, the Citywide Plan is already being used as input for the City's newly re-instituted 5-year capital planning process, thereby helping the City to make strategic use of limited funds.
Incentive Programs. Financial subsidies have fueled much of Cleveland's recent redevelopment. The Citywide Plan recommends that current incentive programs be re-evaluated to ensure that they achieve their objectives in a manner that minimizes use of limited City resources. The plan also recommends that programs be restructured or created to meet newly defined objectives, such as the promotion of "green" building, transit-oriented development, mixed-use development, technology transfer initiatives, and healthy lifestyles.
Funding Resources. It is recognized that City resources alone will not be sufficient to achieve the goals laid out in the Citywide Plan. Consequently, the plan emphasizes the need for creative partnerships between the City, other governments and the private sector in pursuit of the plan's goals. A listing of current funding sources is incorporated into the text of the full plan.
Community Engagement. Meaningful and broad-based public participation is critical in ensuring that the plan has the community support necessary for its implementation. The fact that the Connecting Cleveland plan is built on a firm base of community engagement is a good start, but the success of the plan will depend on a commitment on the part of the City and neighborhood-based organizations to continue that engagement.
⬚ figure
Providing alternative housing types, such as “live-work” units, is one way of capitalizing on the City’s urban character to attract new residents. [Loftworks in Goodrich-Kirtland Park neighborhood]
GOAL: Provide new and renovated housing that meets the needs and preferences of Clevelanders of all incomes, ages and lifestyles
After decades with virtually no significant housing development, Cleveland now leads the region in the creation of new housing. Hundreds of new single-family houses and townhouses are breathing new life into neighborhoods in every part of the City. Conversion of obsolete warehouses into upscale housing and “live-work” spaces has attracted thousands of new residents seeking uniquely urban living environments. At the same time, programs for affordable housing and supportive housing are creating housing opportunities for those whose needs are not served by the private market. In the effort to meet its housing goals, the City must address issues as divergent as homelessness and suburban competition. More specifically, among the housing issues facing Cleveland are the following.
1. Decent and Affordable Housing. Give highest priority among the City’s housing initiatives to the provision of decent and affordable housing for all Clevelanders.
2. Alternative Housing. Attract residents seeking an urban lifestyle by offering alternative housing types, including townhouses, condominiums, live-work spaces, and converted commercial, industrial and institutional buildings.
⬚ figure
Outstanding design and affordability do not have to be mutually exclusive goals in the development of new housing. [Arbor Park Village low-income housing development in the Central neighborhood]
Competitive Places. Create and preserve neighborhoods that are competitive urban places, characterized by mixed-use development, pedestrian-friendly design and transit access.
Housing Choice. Provide a diversity of housing types in neighborhoods throughout the city, maximizing choices for residents of all incomes, ages, ability levels and social circumstances.
Code Enforcement. Target residential code enforcement in a manner that helps stabilize neighborhoods without causing undue hardships for low-income households.
Housing Incentives. Ensure that financial incentives for housing development are the minimum necessary to be effective, and do not result in undue losses of revenue for city services or the public schools.
Rehabilitation. Give priority to housing rehabilitation as the most effective means of making affordable housing available to the greatest number of residents.
Land Assembly. Promote housing development through strategic, proactive land assembly.
Homelessness. Address homelessness through a multi-faceted strategy that includes emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, medical and social services, and job training.
Senior Housing. Develop housing for senior citizens in proximity to shopping, medical facilities, social services, and public transportation.
Design. Ensure that the design of new and renovated houses complements the character of the surrounding neighborhood, through a design review process that is effective, expeditious and equitable.
Neighborhood Plans. Locate infill houses where neighborhood plans ensure a supportive environment for residential development.
Green Building. Encourage use of "green building" techniques in new and renovated housing through code changes and financial incentives.
Housing Accessibility. Expand the range of residential opportunities for persons with special housing needs.
⬚ figure
A central focus of the Citywide Plan’s retail strategy is to re-establish the competitiveness of Cleveland’s neighborhood retail districts by building upon their traditional strengths as pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use districts with distinctive architectural character. [West 25th Street in Ohio City]
GOAL: Provide Cleveland residents with a broad range of high quality, conveniently located retail shopping opportunities
Recent years have seen a marked improvement in shopping opportunities in many Cleveland neighborhoods, with the development of contemporary shopping centers and the renovation of historic retail buildings through the City’s Storefront Renovation Program. Nonetheless, Clevelanders remain underserved with respect to the quality and variety of shopping opportunities available in their neighborhoods and in their city. Studies show that Cleveland residents spend over a billion dollars a year in retail stores outside the City – thirty-three cents on every dollar spent on retail purchases.
As new and renovated housing has risen in Cleveland’s neighborhoods, there is a growing mismatch between the increased spending power of residents and the lesser quality and variety of the retail shopping that serves their neighborhoods. The lack of a full range of quality retailing, along with the poor physical condition of some retail makes these otherwise attractive districts, neighborhoods less desirable as places to live. These issues and others, as highlighted below, must be addressed if Cleveland is to meet its goal to provide all Cleveland residents with a broad range of high-quality retailing.
⬚ figure
Strategically located large-scale shopping centers can complement services offered in traditional urban retail districts. [site of Steelyard Commons shopping center]
⬚ figure
Cleveland can capitalize on the presence of leading medical and educational institutions to attract bio-medical and information technology businesses. [Cleveland Clinic Heart Center]
GOAL: Increase economic prosperity through job creation and improved access to jobs and business ownership by all segments of the Cleveland community
During the first half of the 20th century, Cleveland's economy boomed in an era when the steel industry was king. Workers from Europe and later from the rural south flocked to Cleveland to find work and to raise families. Many of these manufacturing jobs paid well and required relatively little education.
Today, another wave of opportunities is rolling in, except that this time the revolution is taking place in knowledge-based occupations. Cleveland is well positioned to capture a significant share of these jobs, given the region's assets in world-class medical institutions and universities, as well as its legacy of manufacturing know-how. Cleveland's challenge is to re-tool its industries and re-educate its workforce to compete in this knowledge-based economy. Cleveland also has an historic opportunity to create the vital urban neighborhoods – "neighborhoods of choice" – capable of attracting individuals with the education and talent to fuel those knowledge-based businesses.
Nationally, the most prosperous regions are those that radiate out from strong, vibrant central cities. Likewise, it is not an oversimplification to state that northeast Ohio will prosper in the 211 century only if Cleveland prospers. For Cleveland and its region to prosper, both must focus on expanding the economic base – not merely shifting jobs from one part of the region to another, but creating wealth by growing and attracting businesses that export goods and services outside the local economy.
st ↩
⬚ figure
Despite long-term job losses, heavy manufacturing remains a vital part of Cleveland’s economy. [train at Mittal Steel plant on Cuyahoga River.]
“Center of the Center”. Strengthen the amenities, attractions, businesses and residential environment in the central city and its downtown as a keystone for regional economic growth.
Learning. Strengthen public education and access to lifelong workforce learning opportunities as a foundation for building a globally competitive economy and personal prosperity for Cleveland residents.
Opportunity and Equity. Ensure that all Clevelanders have the opportunity to benefit from local economic development activity.
Infrastructure. Plan long-term, coordinated improvements in roadways, transit, waterways, fiber and other infrastructure to foster retention and expansion of the economic base.
Adaptive Re-Use. Bring back into productive economic use advantageously located vacant properties and brownfield sites.
Eco-Industry. Make Cleveland a national leader in the development and application of green building, environmental remediation, alternative energy and sustainability technologies.
Land Assembly. Assemble freeway-accessible sites large enough to accommodate industrial and office park development..
Regionalism. Promote the region’s broad range of business assets in competing collectively to attract businesses from beyond our regional economy.
Incentives. Use pubic financial incentives in proportion to the resulting local economic benefits, while ensuring that assistance program meets the full range of capital needs.
“Hassle Factor”. Make it easier and more predictable to do business in and with the City by implementing a customer-focused approach to regulation and approvals and by providing incentives in a manner that is transparent and easy to navigate.
Quality of Life. Create vibrant urban neighborhoods capable of attracting individuals who will fuel entrepreneurship and “new economy” businesses.
Arts and Culture. Utilize the arts and cultural offerings to attract highly talented and skilled individuals to live and work in the city.
⬚ figure
Maximizing public access to waterfronts is an essential ingredient in any recipe for making Cleveland a more competitive place. [Whiskey Island on Lake Erie]
GOAL: Provide high-quality recreation opportunities and facilities that meet the needs of Clevelanders of all ages, ability levels, incomes and interests
Recreation amenities are becoming increasingly important to communities competing to attract and retain residents. In addition, the link between recreation and good health has become more and more evident. Bikeways, walking trails, climbing walls, skateparks, health clubs and marinas are now among the recreation amenities expected by residents choosing a place to live, in addition to such traditional facilities as playgrounds, baseball fields, swimming pools and the like.
Although Cleveland is extraordinarily fortunate to be located on a Great Lake and along a major river valley, the region has failed to take full advantage of these natural assets as places of recreation. That is changing and will change even more dramatically as Cleveland's current waterfront plans are implemented. The potential for enhanced waterfront access gives Cleveland an historic opportunity to transform its image to a place where urban amenities are joined by scenic beauty and unique outdoor recreation activities.
Another set of issues facing Cleveland revolves around the City's network of 140 parks, playgrounds, swimming pools and recreation centers. As the City's population has declined over the decades, its ability to maintain and program these facilities has been severely tested. The principal issue facing the City in this respect is how to provide the quality of recreation facilities and programs demanded by residents while living within the budget of a community with a reduced population and reduced resources.
⬚ figure
Extension of the Towpath Trail to downtown Cleveland will open new recreation opportunities for City residents and will serve as the spine of a regional network of bike routes. [Ohio & Erie Canal Reservation]
Bikeways. Create a comprehensive network of bicycle routes, bicycle lanes and multi-purpose trails, safely linking neighborhoods to recreation sites, schools, shopping areas, places of employment and other destinations throughout the City and the region.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Amenities. Provide bicycle racks, benches, water fountains and other amenities to encourage bicycling and pedestrian travel throughout the City.
Serving Neighborhoods. Ensure that a wide range of recreation facilities are equitably distributed throughout the City, with playgrounds located within approximately 1/4-mile (a 5-minute walk) of all residents.
Quality of Facilities. Provide recreation facilities competitive with the best available in the region, consolidating large-scale facilities at transit-accessible locations.
Diverse Programming. Offer a diversity of recreation programs to serve the recreation needs and interests of Clevelanders of all ages, incomes, lifestyles and ability levels.
Serving Working Adults. Provide recreation services and equipment geared to the interests and schedules of working adults, supplementing recreation services oriented principally to children and seniors.
Sharing Resources. Increase the availability and quality of recreation services through shared use of facilities owned by the City, School District, YMCA and other non-profit organizations.
Sharing Responsibilities. Improve maintenance at public parks and recreation centers through “adopt-a-park” programs and corporate sponsorships.
Community Gardens. Reserve land for both temporary and permanent use as community gardens in every neighborhood throughout the City.
Preserving Natural Areas. Identify and protect natural areas characterized by stream valleys, wetlands, hillsides, forests and other environmentally sensitive and valuable features.
Urban Forest. Protect and expand the supply of street trees and landscaped areas within Cleveland’s urbanized districts, maximizing environmental and aesthetic benefits.
⬚ figure
Schools can be designed and operated to serve as multi-purpose community centers, with a variety of activities offered during non-school hours. [Nathan Hale Middle School in Mt. Pleasant]
GOAL: Connect communities and their institutions in a manner that nurtures the physical, mental and spiritual life of all residents
The quality of life offered by a neighborhood is measured not only by the quality of its housing but by the quality of its services. Schools, libraries, medical offices, social service agencies and other community facilities provide services that are the prerequisites for a superior quality of life. These services have the power to connect all members of the community to opportunities to achieve economic security and personal fulfillment.
Beyond the services themselves, the buildings that house these facilities can be powerful symbols of community. They embody our shared values and they are a visible acknowledgement that we are only as strong as the weakest among us and that our community's future depends on our ability to maximize the potential of every member of the community.
The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan recognizes that even the best of services will be poorly delivered if the service facilities are not properly located, sited and designed. Those considerations are, therefore, critical elements of the plan and its implementation. Underlying most issues regarding the provision of community facilities and services is the commitment on the part of the wider community to provide financial and creative resources commensurate with the needs of residents in the City and in each of its neighborhoods.
⬚ figure
Convenient access is a prerequisite to providing effective community services to residents of City neighborhoods. [MetroHealth medical center on Broadway]
Equitable Funding for Schools. Advocate for a statewide system of school funding that responds to the needs of students rather than to the wealth of communities.
Education Options. Provide Clevelanders with education options that include traditional schools, magnet schools and charter schools, both public and private.
Coordinated Neighborhood Services. Facilitate cooperation between local service providers and community organizations to work at the neighborhood level to address the comprehensive needs of residents for education, training, health care, and social services.
Personal Development. Create locally-based programs that foster personal development and ethics as the foundation for strengthening the social fabric of communities and ensuring a better quality of life for residents.
Community Libraries. Support full-service libraries as centers for lifelong learning and intergenerational learning in each of Cleveland’s neighborhoods.
Community Health Care. Ensure that medical offices are located so as to supplement full-scale hospitals in serving residents of all Cleveland neighborhoods and that critical health care education is provided to students in elementary and secondary schools.
Capital Improvements. Coordinate capital improvements planning between the City and the School District to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of those expenditures.
⬚ figure
Design features such as front porches and windows that put "eyes on the street" can make a significant and long-term contribution to improving neighborhood safety.
GOAL: Improve public safety through safety-conscious design and through community-based solutions focused on crime prevention
Safety is the most fundamental characteristic of a desirable neighborhood. Nothing is more important to the well-being of residents than safety. The job of creating safe neighborhoods, however, cannot rest solely on police and fire and EMS officers. It takes the efforts of residents, businesses, judges, teachers, social workers and a host of others. City planning has an important but often overlooked role to play, particularly in the critical area of crime prevention.
The design and layout of developments can help prevent crime or can make crime more likely. Areas hidden from view work to the advantage of criminals; areas open to public view and surveillance work to the advantage of residents, shoppers and employees. Similarly, poorly lit areas work to the advantage of criminals, while well-lit areas work to the advantage of the public.
Just as important in preventing crime is action by the community to organize against crime. Merchants’ associations, block clubs and other groups, working in partnership with the police, can play a critical role in sending a message to criminals that their presence will not be tolerated. These same groups are working with local government and the courts to control and eliminate the dilapidated vacant buildings that are havens for drug trafficking and other crimes, while targeting other high-crime areas for additional police presence.
⬚ figure
Communities organizing against crime send the signal that criminal activity will not be tolerated. [sign for program to "weed" out crime and "seed" positive activities]
⬚ figure
Encouraging mixed-use development in proximity to transit service can strengthen the competitiveness of urban neighborhoods. [RTA Waterfront Line station]
GOAL: Provide a variety of transportation options that serve residents of all income levels and that promote economic development while protecting the quality of life in neighborhoods
Cleveland is located at a nexus of the regional and national transportation network, where freeway, rail, airline and shipping routes converge. This extraordinary transportation access was largely responsible for Cleveland’s growth as a national center of economic activity.
On the local level, within the City itself, the rail lines branch off to serve local industry and the freeway system provides access to a system of roads that serve businesses and residents alike. Commuter rail lines complete the local transportation network, along with sidewalks for pedestrians and routes for bicyclists. Among the transportation issues facing Cleveland are the following.
⬚ figure
The Citywide Plan advocates placing priority on the upgrading of existing infrastructure in the allocation of transportation and infrastructure funding. [Fulton Road Bridge over Big Creek valley]
Neighborhood Bus Service. Continue and expand RTA’s “Community Circulator” program, providing convenient bus service to residents using mass transit to reach such neighborhood destinations as shopping, recreation and medical services.
Transit Amenities. Upgrade the condition of bus shelters, transit stations, and transit vehicles, and provide improved information on schedules and routes.
Transit Line Extensions. Consider strategic extensions to existing mass transit lines where significant ridership increases are likely.
Bicycle Travel. Develop a citywide and regional network of safe bicycle routes, connecting to work, school, shopping and recreation destinations; and make bicycle accommodation a routine component of roadway and development projects.
Pedestrian Travel. Make Cleveland a national model for pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, featuring conveniently-located sidewalks and paths, benches, and streetside development patterns.
Maintenance of Existing Infrastructure. Work with regional, state and federal agencies to give priority to the maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure in the allocation of transportation funding.
Ports. Ensure Cleveland’s long-term viability as a hub for air- and water-based transportation, while reserving appropriately located land for waterfront recreation.
Regional Land Use Planning. Coordinate transportation and infrastructure planning with land use plans designed to limit the negative impacts of urban sprawl and promote more efficient use of existing infrastructure and community facilities.
Industrial Access. Develop roads that provide direct truck access between freeways and industrial areas, by-passing neighborhoods where truck traffic degrades the quality of life for residents.
Job Access. Provide transit service between central city neighborhoods and employment concentrations in the city and in outlying areas.
Traffic Calming. Institute “traffic-calming” measures in residential areas and neighborhood shopping districts where existing traffic volumes and speeds create safety hazards and unpleasant conditions for residents and shoppers.
⬚ figure
Local arts offerings reflect and represent the tremendous cultural and demographic diversity of the Cleveland community. [theatre production at Karamu House]
GOAL: Enrich the lives of Clevelanders and strengthen economic vitality by establishing Cleveland as a world-class center for the arts
The City of Cleveland enjoys celebrated status in the realm of arts and culture. Cleveland is home to two truly world-class institutions in the Cleveland Orchestra and Cleveland Museum of Art, the nation’s second largest performing arts complex in the theaters of Playhouse Square, and a number of nationally recognized arts organizations including the Cleveland Institutes of Music and Art, the Cleveland Playhouse, the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and the Tri-C Jazz Fest, among others. Cleveland also hosts several adventurous theaters and music ensembles, opera, dance, an expanding contemporary art gallery, and a growing number of venues for contemporary music.
Today, the arts have become increasingly important as a magnet for attracting people and businesses to regions across the nation. Cleveland has the opportunity to capitalize on its enviable cultural assets as catalysts for neighborhood regeneration and community-wide economic development – even beyond the estimated $1.3 billion current impact of the arts on the regional economy. One of Cleveland’s challenges in accomplishing this goal will be to find the resources needed to support the arts – maintaining the quality of the region’s most prominent institutions in the face of the region’s long-term relative decline in population, while supporting those emerging arts organizations and artists who are exploring new territory at the edges of the contemporary arts scene.
⬚ figure
Public art can help "tell the story" of a place and add a new dimension to its image. [fence at Mill Creek waterfall]
⬚ figure
The Citywide Plan promotes creation of renewable energy resources that take advantage of our natural assets and minimize negative environmental impacts. [wind turbine at the Great Lakes Science Center]
GOAL: Ensure the long-term environmental, economic and social viability of Cleveland and its region
A "sustainable Cleveland" is a community that meets the needs of the present without compromising the future. Because past generations lacked the understanding and the capabilities to achieve this, today we must address the consequences of actions that have, in fact, compromised our "present." These consequences include, among others, contaminated brownfield sites, urban sprawl, over-dependence on the automobile, energy-wasting buildings, poor water quality, and unhealthy lifestyles associated with unhealthful development patterns.
Sustainability, however, requires even more than protection of our natural environment and our physical health. Just as important is the commitment to the minds of our children and all Clevelanders – providing them with the education that will enable them to adapt to ever-changing economic and social circumstances. In this sense, an educated community is a sustainable community, just as much as a healthy community is a sustainable community.
⬚ figure
“Greenbuilding” techniques can contribute to creating sustainable communities in Cleveland. [EcoVillage townhouses in Detroit-Shoreway]
Nonmotorized Travel. Design and develop safe routes for walking and bicycling, accessible to all residents, in order to reduce automobile dependency, improve health, and reduce the cost of travel.
Motorized Travel. Continue to upgrade current bus fleets with cleaner-burning vehicles and accelerate the replacement of vehicles in government and corporate fleets with more fuel-efficient and cleaner-burning vehicles.
Mass Transit. Increase use of mass transit through such initiatives as employer incentives, park-and-ride lots, and transit-oriented development projects.
Energy Conservation. Reduce use of energy and water in City facilities and vehicles and encourage similar practices by residents, businesses and other organizations.
Renewable Energy. Promote use of solar, wind, geothermal and other renewable energy resources.
Brownfield Remediation. Clean contaminated “brownfield” sites and promote beneficial re-use through regulatory action and increased funding to improve Cleveland’s environmental and economic health.
Recycling and Waste Management. Reduce waste disposal through municipal curbside recycling and programs for recycling tires, motor oil, yard waste, electronic equipment, demolition debris, and roadway materials, as well as by encouraging consumers to make choices that are less wasteful of resources.
Water Quality. Improve regional water quality by better managing stormwater runoff, strictly enforcing emission controls, reducing use of harmful lawn-care chemicals, restoring urban streams and rivers.
Air Quality. Improve regional air quality by strictly enforcing emission controls, increasing alternative energy production, and promoting use of mass transit, nonmotorized travel, and cleaner-powered vehicles.
⬚ figure
Formally designating structures or districts as "historic" is an important tool for preserving Cleveland's past.
GOAL: Foster preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings and districts in the City of Cleveland
Tiring of cookie-cutter development that ends up making every street corner in America look like every other corner, with the same monotonous "fast food" style of architecture, Americans are increasingly drawn to places that have a distinctive character and ambiance. In Cleveland, it is the classic architecture of historic buildings that helps create this distinctive character. Cleveland's historic resources, however, are threatened every day by market forces, as well as by those who fail to recognize the true value of these irreplaceable assets.
Through its Landmarks Commission and through its use of the federal Section 106 requirements, Cleveland possesses the regulatory tools necessary to preserve its historic buildings and districts. Since its creation in 1973, the Commission has designated 22 local historic districts, 29 National Register historic districts, and 234 individual landmark buildings and structures. The real challenge facing Cleveland is how re-define the real estate market, educate property owners, and provide the financial incentives to ensure the economic viability of the community's landmark buildings.
1 Marketing. Capitalize on the presence of architecturally and historically significant buildings in promoting and marketing Cleveland's older neighborhoods as competitive places to live and visit
2 Economic Re-Use. Identify and pursue opportunities for economically viable re-use of significant structures threatened by neglect and possible demolition.
3 Design Standards. Establish design review standards that are effective and reasonable in protecting historic structures and in ensuring that new development is complementary to character of historic districts.
4 Designation. Protect historic buildings and districts through designation as local landmarks and through listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
⬚ figure
Some older buildings can be preserved by renovating them for new uses that capitalize on their unique features and character. [residential conversion of Tower Press Building at Superior and East 18th]
5 Education. Increase public awareness of the history and architecture of Cleveland and its neighborhoods, as well as the value of historic preservation.
6 Technical Assistance. Provide property owners with technical assistance in maintaining and rehabilitating historic buildings.
7 Preventative Maintenance. Adopt and enforce laws that require preventative maintenance of historic buildings and structures.
8 Funding. Retain and expand funding for historic preservation at all levels of government, including tax credits for rehabilitation.
⬚ figure
Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
Cleveland is the central city of the nation’s 15th most populous grouping of metropolitan areas—a seven-county region with a 2000 population of over 2.9 million. However, while the region’s overall population showed only very slow growth during the 1990s, the Cleveland metropolitan area saw a further decrease, as the decades-long trend known as “urban sprawl” continued. The city itself actually lost population at a slower rate during the 1990s than it had in previous decades, ending the century with 478,403 residents (2000 U.S. Census Bureau figure). As outward migration and development continue, it is Cleveland’s inner-ring suburbs that now find themselves facing many of the issues that the City has had to struggle with, including a declining population.
Major demographic patterns and trends, in addition to urban sprawl, that the city is grappling with include the following:
Cleveland remains highly segregated.
Cleveland profits little from international migration.
Cleveland lacks a young, highly-educated population.
Cleveland has a growing minority population, with a majority of its residents now members of minority groups.
While Clevelanders’ incomes increased during the 1990s, the city’s workforce remains primarily low-wage.
Cleveland has a relatively small number of married-couple households and a large number of single-parent and single-person households.
Cleveland has a high ratio of children and seniors to wage earners.
The State of Ohio and the region are expected to continue in a slow growth pattern.
Much of the information in this chapter comes from an analysis of the United States decennial census done by the Brookings Institution in a report entitled: “Cleveland in Focus: A Profile from Census 2000”. In the report, Cleveland is compared to 23 other large American cities, and a profile of Cleveland relative to those cities is presented.
Several trends emerge that give a clearer picture of the challenge before us, and may also suggest some areas of greatest vulnerability (or opportunity), where connections with appropriate community assets could be helpful. (Highlighted text refers to maps and charts with more detailed information located at the end of the chapter.)
In 2000 the United States Census Bureau listed the city’s population at 478,403. Cleveland’s population loss during the 1990s was 5.4% compared to a loss of 8.9% during the 1980s. The number of households has also declined, albeit at a slower pace than population, and stood at 190,638 in 2000. (See Graph.) Out-migration of residents is the principal reason for Cleveland’s population loss.
⬚ figure
Cuyahoga County has also started to see a decline in population. Despite a development pattern in which developed property (red areas on the maps below) covered over twice the land area in 2000 than it did in 1950, the county’s actual population in those two years was nearly identical. While there were 40% more households in Cuyahoga County by the end of that 50-year period (Household Trend)1, the average number of household members had fallen from 3.1 to 2.39 for the county, and in the city of Cleveland, from 3.1 to 2.44.
Development Pattern – 1948 Development Pattern – 2002 Cuyahoga County Cuyahoga County
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
Source: Cuyahoga County Planning Commission
While the core of the metropolitan area continued to decline in population, the outer suburbs continued to expand2. The four-county metropolitan statistical area that includes the city showed an increase of 1.4% or 25,000 people between 1990 and 2000. The pattern of population growth3 shows much of the city and inner suburbs declining in population with the growth occurring at the periphery of Cuyahoga County and in surrounding counties. Some census tracts in and around Downtown Cleveland, which had previously experienced severe population declines, have shown population increases as a result of new housing construction.
Because major employment centers such as Downtown, University Circle and industrial districts are located within the city of Cleveland, the number of people that actually work in the city—and thus require many services on a daily basis—is larger than its residential population. The Census Bureau estimates that the city’s daytime population increases to approximately 593,000 due to the influx of commuters to their jobs.
Over the years an increasing percentage of the city’s population has been non-white. In 1990 just over half of Cleveland’s residents were non-whites. During the 1990s that number grew to 61.2 percent with the proportion of African-Americans and Hispanics increasing the most.4 The segregation of African Americans from whites and of African-Americans from Hispanics exceeds the averages for many large cities. Cleveland’s African-American population is concentrated on the east side5 of the city and in the near eastern suburbs. Hispanics are concentrated in the city’s west side6 neighborhoods.
⬚ figure
In 2000 over 50% of Cleveland’s population was African-American.
The city’s African-American population increased by 10,837 persons, from 235,405 in 1990 to 246,242 in 2000. This increase occurred primarily because births exceeded deaths by more than 26,000. There was a net out-migration of 15,329 African Americans during the decade, which partially offset the increase in population. Births among whites also exceeded the number of deaths by more than 9,300, but that coupled with a net out-migration of approximately 53,093 resulted in a decrease of 43,747 in the white population. At the neighborhood level1, increases and decreases in net migration by race varied widely between 1990 and 2000. Some areas, like the Broadway and Collinwood neighborhoods, have seen a significant change in their racial makeup since 1990.
Cleveland – Population by Age Cohort, 2000
⬚ figure
Source: The Brookings Institution
High concentrations of persons under the age of 181 are found on the southeast, northeast and near west sides of the city. Individuals over the age of 652 are concentrated in the city’s inner suburbs and parts of the east side. Some 70 children and seniors are being supported by every 100 of Cleveland’s working-age adults—the second highest percentage of economically dependent population3 found among the 23 target cities looked at in the Brookings Institute study.
Household Type: Compared to other cities,4 Cleveland has a relatively small married-couple family population and a large single-parent family population. The city also has a high percentage of single-person households. During the 1990s5 the city of Cleveland saw a drop in married-couple households while it showed a slight increase in other household types. During that same period the suburbs saw rapid growth in single-parent and single-person households. The suburbs showed a slight growth in married-couples without children but also lost population in married-couple-with-children households.
Turnover: Cleveland has more long-term residents than many other cities. In 2000 only 16.1% of the city’s population had lived in a different city five years before (1995). Among the 23 cities targeted by the Brookings Institution study, Cleveland had the sixth lowest share of “new arrivals”.
Education: The nation’s long-term transition to a service-oriented “knowledge” economy means that places with a critical mass of educated workers have a competitive advantage. In 2000 in Cleveland, almost 1 in 4 children lived in a family with no working parents.6 The percentage of Cleveland adults holding a bachelor’s degree7 is the fifth lowest among the nation’s 100 largest cities. The percentage is rising but is still below the average for the 23 cities compared in the Brookings study. The city of Cleveland also has the second smallest university student population8 among the 23 cities studied.
⬚ figure
Cleveland is behind many major cities in university population and the number of residents with bachelor degrees.
Income: Cleveland's median household income in 2000 was $25,928, up 8.3% from its 1990 median income of $23,945. This was twice the national average increase of 4.0% but still left Cleveland ranked third lowest among the 100 largest cities1 in the country. It was also just two-thirds of Cuyahoga County's median household income of $39,168. The national median income in 2000 was $41,994. Low-income households outnumber high-income households in the city by 5 to 1.2
Poverty: The poverty rate in Cleveland declined somewhat during the 1990s, going from 28.7% in 1990 to 26.3% in 2000. However, the child poverty rate (38%), was found to exceed the city average in 2000, while the elderly poverty rate (16.8%) came in below the city average. The greatest concentration of poverty3 is found on the city's east and near west sides, where many of the city's Hispanic and African-American residents live. Not surprisingly, Cleveland had the second highest Hispanic and African-American poverty rates of the 23 target cities in the Brookings Study.
In light of the numbers and trends presented in foregoing section, Cleveland faces a number of challenges with respect to Population:
Net Out-Migration of Residents: If population were solely determined by the ratio of births to deaths, Cleveland's population would be increasing. Given the city's relatively small senior population, as compared to its young person population, this same trend should continue into the future; but it is not expected to affect the bottom line. The city is losing population because more people are moving out than are moving in.
Families and Married Couples Leaving the City: The city has, in particular, seen an exodus of married couples both with and without children. Improvement in the Cleveland Public Schools is clearly a critical factor for addressing this issue. The affordable housing offered by Cleveland, on the other hand, should be an asset for attracting this household type.
⬚ figure
Cleveland has lagged behind other cities in attracting new immigrants. [Goodrich-Kirtland Park neighborhood]
Segregated Racial Patterns: In some neighborhoods, integration has led to large shifts in racial composition. Such large shifts impact neighborhood stability.
An Under-Educated Population: Compared to many other large cities, Cleveland comes up short both in working-age residents with an education and residents working on an education. More education usually translates into higher incomes, which in turn enables the City to provide an array of important services for all of its residents. Such Cleveland assets as the Cleveland Clinic, the institutions of University Circle and Cleveland State University could be better capitalized upon.
Downtown’s Still Unrealized Potential: A residential population is key to a vibrant Downtown Cleveland, and a vibrant Downtown Cleveland would powerfully symbolize the vitality of the whole region. A residential base will also support accessory land uses such as retail that have tended in recent years to relocate away from the city center. Downtown Cleveland’s enormous potential is seen in the fact that it is one of the few areas in the city that has actually experienced population growth in the last decade. Entertainment venues such as Gateway and Playhouse Square, and natural features such as Lake Erie and the Cuyahoga Valley, constitute unique assets that can be built around.
With respect to population, the following policies should guide the City:
Migration. Stem net out-migration.
Families. Make the city attractive again to families.
Immigrants. Attract more immigrants.
Integration. Foster integrated neighborhoods.
Education. Increase the educated population.
Downtown. Continue Downtown's residential growth.
Access & Choices: Behind all of these policies is the recognition of the fact that, more than ever before, people can choose where they want to live. This is especially true of highly educated and creative persons of the sort that will be needed in great numbers between now and 2020 to drive the new economy, generate—and fill—the jobs of the 21st century, and make Cleveland competitive. Research has shown what attracts such people to an area. Things like
Distinctive and interesting neighborhoods that offer an array of housing options—from large old homes with big lawns to modern condominiums with stunning urban or waterfront views to roomy apartment lofts in charming historic districts.
Access to shopping and dining, entertainment, public transportation, recreational facilities, nature and other amenities.
Access to first-rate educational, cultural and other opportunities, as well as to health care and state-of-the-art accommodations for older citizens and retirees.
A community that is supportive of new businesses and new ideas, where people are free to express their individuality and diversity in people and lifestyles is valued.
The Need for Coordinated Thinking: Thus, decisions made over the next 15 years in such subject areas as Housing or Transportation & Transit, or in neighborhoods around the city, by developers and others will affect Cleveland's ability to stem
outward migration, stabilize the city’s population, and attract additional people with skills and ideas critical to its future competitiveness. The Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan therefore proposes a broad range of land use and development policy recommendations—and identifies opportunities for new development—that are intended to increase choice and access and improve the quality of life in the city of Cleveland.
Policies and strategies that deal with citywide issues are presented in the chapters on Housing, Retail, Economic Development, Recreation and Open Space, Sustainability, Arts and Culture, Education and Community Services, Transportation and Transit, Safety and Preservation.
Goals and strategies and opportunities for development that are more specific to individual Cleveland neighborhoods are found in the District Chapters, one chapter for each of the city’s six planning districts.
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
Population - 12
Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
| Rank | Living Cities | Total Population | Foreign-born Population | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Miami, FL | 362,470 | 215,739 | 59.5% |
| 2 | Los Angeles, CA | 3,694,820 | 1,512,720 | 40.9% |
| 3 | New York, NY | 8,008,278 | 2,871,032 | 35.9% |
| 4 | Oakland, CA | 399,484 | 106,116 | 26.6% |
| 5 | Boston, MA | 589,141 | 151,836 | 25.8% |
| 6 | Dallas, TX | 1,188,580 | 290,436 | 24.4% |
| 7 | Newark, NJ | 273,546 | 66,057 | 24.1% |
| 8 | Chicago, IL | 2,896,016 | 628,903 | 21.7% |
| 9 | Phoenix, AZ | 1,321,045 | 257,325 | 19.5% |
| 10 | Denver, CO | 554,636 | 96,601 | 17.4% |
| 11 | Seattle, WA | 563,374 | 94,952 | 16.9% |
| 12 | Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN | 669,769 | 96,613 | 14.4% |
| 13 | Portland, OR | 529,121 | 68,976 | 13.0% |
| 14 | Washington, DC | 572,059 | 73,561 | 12.9% |
| 15 | San Antonio, TX | 1,144,646 | 133,675 | 11.7% |
| 16 | Philadelphia, PA | 1,517,550 | 137,205 | 9.0% |
| 17 | Columbus, OH | 711,470 | 47,713 | 6.7% |
| 18 | Atlanta, GA | 416,474 | 27,352 | 6.6% |
| 19 | Kansas City, MO | 441,545 | 25,632 | 5.8% |
| 20 | Detroit, MI | 951,270 | 45,541 | 4.8% |
| 21 | Indianapolis, IN | 781,870 | 36,067 | 4.6% |
| 22 | Baltimore, MD | 651,154 | 29,638 | 4.6% |
| 23 | Cleveland, OH | 478,403 | 21,372 | 4.5% |
| All Living Cities | 28,716,721 | 7,035,062 | 24.5% | |
| Nation | 281,421,906 | 31,107,889 | 11.1% |
Source: The Brookings Institution
⬚ figure
Source: The Brookings Institution
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
Source: The Brookings Institution
⬚ figure
Source: DataPlace
Population – 17 Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
| Rank | Living Cities | Dependency Ratio | Children (0-17) | Working-age (18-64) | Elderly (65+) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Detroit, MI | 71 | 31.1% | 58.5% | 10.4% |
| 2 | Cleveland, OH | 70 | 28.5% | 59.0% | 12.5% |
| 3 | Philadelphia, PA | 65 | 25.3% | 60.6% | 14.1% |
| 4 | San Antonio, TX | 64 | 28.5% | 61.0% | 10.4% |
| 5 | Miami, FL | 63 | 21.7% | 61.2% | 17.0% |
| 6 | Baltimore, MD | 61 | 24.8% | 62.0% | 13.2% |
| 7 | Newark, NJ | 59 | 27.9% | 62.8% | 9.3% |
| 8 | Kansas City, MO | 59 | 25.4% | 62.9% | 11.7% |
| 9 | Phoenix, AZ | 59 | 28.9% | 63.0% | 8.1% |
| 10 | Indianapolis, IN | 58 | 25.7% | 63.4% | 11.0% |
| 11 | Chicago, IL | 58 | 26.2% | 63.4% | 10.3% |
| 12 | Los Angeles, CA | 57 | 26.6% | 63.8% | 9.7% |
| 13 | New York, NY | 56 | 24.2% | 64.1% | 11.7% |
| 14 | Oakland, CA | 55 | 25.0% | 64.6% | 10.5% |
| 15 | Dallas, TX | 54 | 26.6% | 64.8% | 8.6% |
| 16 | Minneapolis-St Paul, MN | 51 | 24.2% | 66.2% | 9.6% |
| 17 | Denver, CO | 50 | 22.0% | 66.8% | 11.3% |
| 18 | Columbus, OH | 49 | 24.2% | 67.0% | 8.9% |
| 19 | Portland, OR | 48 | 21.1% | 67.4% | 11.6% |
| 20 | Washington, DC | 48 | 20.1% | 67.7% | 12.2% |
| 21 | Atlanta, GA | 47 | 22.3% | 67.9% | 9.7% |
| 22 | Boston, MA | 43 | 19.8% | 69.8% | 10.4% |
| 23 | Seattle, WA | 38 | 15.6% | 72.4% | 12.0% |
| All Living Cities | 57 | 25.2% | 63.9% | 10.9% | |
| Nation | 62 | 25.7% | 61.9% | 12.4% |
*The dependency ratio represents the number of children and seniors for every 100 adults age 18 to 64.
Population – 18 Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
Population – 19 | Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
⬚ figure
| Rank | Living Cities | Children Living in Families | Children Living in Families with No Parents in Labor Force | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Newark, NJ | 66,391 | 18,588 | 28.0% |
| 2 | Miami, FL | 70,620 | 19,171 | 27.1% |
| 3 | Washington, DC | 99,374 | 24,408 | 24.6% |
| 4 | Atlanta, GA | 81,609 | 19,922 | 24.4% |
| 5 | Detroit, MI | 261,080 | 63,293 | 24.2% |
| 6 | Oakland, CA | 89,842 | 21,161 | 23.6% |
| 7 | New York, NY | 1,767,267 | 407,401 | 23.1% |
| 8 | Cleveland, OH | 122,939 | 28,233 | 23.0% |
| 9 | Boston, MA | 106,516 | 24,252 | 22.8% |
| 10 | Baltimore, MD | 137,315 | 31,259 | 22.8% |
| 11 | Los Angeles, CA | 896,816 | 200,387 | 22.3% |
| 12 | Philadelphia, PA | 343,503 | 75,384 | 21.9% |
| 13 | Chicago, IL | 675,233 | 146,055 | 21.6% |
| 14 | Dallas, TX | 284,869 | 54,358 | 19.1% |
| 15 | Denver, CO | 110,483 | 19,212 | 17.4% |
| 16 | Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN | 150,072 | 25,699 | 17.1% |
| 17 | San Antonio, TX | 305,519 | 47,243 | 15.5% |
| 18 | Phoenix, AZ | 350,141 | 53,471 | 15.3% |
| 19 | Kansas City, MO | 103,352 | 14,581 | 14.1% |
| 20 | Columbus, OH | 160,779 | 19,261 | 12.0% |
| 21 | Indianapolis, IN | 186,615 | 20,247 | 10.8% |
| 22 | Portland, OR | 103,278 | 9,723 | 9.4% |
| 23 | Seattle, WA | 81,322 | 7,522 | 9.2% |
| All Living Cities | 6,554,935 | 1,350,831 | 20.6% | |
| Nation | 67,882,626 | 7,096,231 | 10.5% |
Source: The Brookings Institution
⬚ figure
| Central Cities | Share of Pop. Over 25 w/B.A.s 2000 | Rank |
|---|---|---|
| Akron, OH | 18.0% | 91 |
| Philadelphia, PA | 17.9% | 92 |
| Toledo, OH | 16.8% | 93 |
| Miami, FL | 16.2% | 94 |
| Stockton, CA | 15.4% | 95 |
| Cleveland, OH | 11.4% | 96 |
| Detroit, MI | 11.0% | 97 |
| Hialeah, FL | 10.4% | 98 |
| Santa Ana, CA | 9.2% | 99 |
| Newark, NJ | 9.0% | 100 |
Source: The Brookings Institution
⬚ figure
| Rank | Living Cities | Population 15 or Older | Population 15 or Older Enrolled at University | Percent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Boston, MA | 490,749 | 85,847 | 17.5% |
| 2 | Columbus, OH | 563,755 | 76,580 | 13.6% |
| 3 | Seattle, WA | 489,677 | 65,399 | 13.4% |
| 4 | Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN | 532,038 | 69,101 | 13.0% |
| 5 | Washington, DC | 474,417 | 59,498 | 12.5% |
| 6 | Atlanta, GA | 337,572 | 35,436 | 10.5% |
| 7 | Los Angeles, CA | 2,853,991 | 287,532 | 10.1% |
| 8 | Oakland, CA | 314,479 | 31,244 | 9.9% |
| 9 | Philadelphia, PA | 1,194,967 | 115,671 | 9.7% |
| 10 | Portland, OR | 435,445 | 41,429 | 9.5% |
| 11 | Baltimore, MD | 515,550 | 48,736 | 9.5% |
| 12 | New York, NY | 6,376,852 | 593,664 | 9.3% |
| 13 | Chicago, IL | 2,253,912 | 209,810 | 9.3% |
| 14 | San Antonio, TX | 870,155 | 74,407 | 8.6% |
| 15 | Denver, CO | 451,498 | 38,309 | 8.5% |
| 16 | Kansas City, MO | 346,961 | 26,433 | 7.6% |
| 17 | Phoenix, AZ | 994,728 | 73,315 | 7.4% |
| 18 | Newark, NJ | 209,388 | 15,312 | 7.3% |
| 19 | Detroit, MI | 698,253 | 48,926 | 7.0% |
| 20 | Miami, FL | 297,081 | 20,704 | 7.0% |
| 21 | Indianapolis, IN | 612,692 | 42,498 | 6.9% |
| 22 | Cleveland, OH | 361,237 | 23,468 | 6.5% |
| 23 | Dallas, TX | 919,625 | 56,366 | 6.1% |
| All Living Cities | 22,595,022 | 2,187,377 | 9.7% | |
| Nation | 221,148,671 | 17,483,243 | 7.9% |
⬚ figure
| Resident Median Income | ||
|---|---|---|
| 2000 | Rank | |
| Cincinnati | $29,493 | 89 |
| Hialeah | $29,492 | 90 |
| Louisville | $28,843 | 91 |
| Pittsburgh | $28,588 | 92 |
| St. Louis | $27,156 | 93 |
| New Orleans | $27,133 | 94 |
| Rochester | $27,123 | 95 |
| Newark | $26,913 | 96 |
| Birmingham | $26,735 | 97 |
| CLEVELAND | $25,928 | 98 |
| Buffalo | $24,536 | 99 |
| Miami | $23,483 | 100 |
⬚ figure
⬚ figure
Population – 22
Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
⬚ figure
Connecting Cleveland 2020 Citywide Plan
449 pages load as you reach them