CLEVELAND REGION The Cleveland region features two central cities, Cleveland and Akron. The region’s neighborhoods are experiencing powerful economic decline and virtually no gentrification or growth. The only significant pocket of gentrification appears to have occurred in the Tremont area, and the number of people displaced is, on net, in the hundreds. By comparison, nearly half of regional population lives in a strongly declining area. Those same neighborhoods include about 65 percent of low-income population. Despite losing nearly 10 percent of their population since 2000 – 166,000 people – they have seen a 30 percent increase in low-income population and a 49 percent increase in residents in poverty. They have also seen massive white flight, losing 212,000 white residents, or 20 percent of their entire white population, since 2000. In Cleveland’s suburbs, declining areas are undergoing poverty concentration. But neighborhood decline is much more severe in the cities of Akron and Cleveland, where about 75 percent of population lives in a strongly declining area. In Cleveland proper, poverty concentration is less frequent than outright abandonment, and much of the city’s eastern half is growing poorer while losing low-income and middle-income population alike. Regional Total Population: 2,764,798 Regional Low-Income Population: 862,853 Regional Nonwhite Population: 738,420 Central City Population: 589,388 Central City Low-Income Population: 328,240 Central City Nonwhite Population: 335,783 NET DISPLACEMENT (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Expansion, 2000-2016) Central City: -964 Suburbs: -465 NET CONCENTRATION (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Decline, 2000-2016) Central City: 29,528 Suburbs: 96,947 1
8
Embed
CLEVELAND REGION - University of Minnesota Law School...CLEVELAND REGION . The Cleveland region features two central cities, Cleveland and Akron. The region’s neighborhoods are experiencing
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
CLEVELAND REGION
The Cleveland region features two central cities, Cleveland and Akron. The region’s neighborhoods are experiencing powerful economic decline and virtually no gentrification or growth. The only significant pocket of gentrification appears to have occurred in the Tremont area, and the number of people displaced is, on net, in the hundreds.
By comparison, nearly half of regional population lives in a strongly declining area. Those same neighborhoods include about 65 percent of low-income population. Despite losing nearly 10 percent of their population since 2000 – 166,000 people – they have seen a 30 percent increase in low-income population and a 49 percent increase in residents in poverty. They have also seen massive white flight, losing 212,000 white residents, or 20 percent of their entire white population, since 2000.
In Cleveland’s suburbs, declining areas are undergoing poverty concentration. But neighborhood decline is much more severe in the cities of Akron and Cleveland, where about 75 percent of population lives in a strongly declining area. In Cleveland proper, poverty concentration is less frequent than outright abandonment, and much of the city’s eastern half is growing poorer while losing low-income and middle-income population alike.
Regional Total Population: 2,764,798
Regional Low-Income Population: 862,853
Regional Nonwhite Population: 738,420
Central City Population: 589,388
Central City Low-Income Population: 328,240
Central City Nonwhite Population: 335,783
NET DISPLACEMENT (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Expansion, 2000-2016)
Central City: -964
Suburbs: -465
NET CONCENTRATION (Low-Income Change in Tracts with Strong Decline, 2000-2016)
Central City: 29,528
Suburbs: 96,947
1
DETAILS ON TABLES
The following tables depict aggregated population and housing change in two categories of neighborhoods across the metropolitan area, its central cities, and its suburbs. The categories are:
• Economically expanding neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with growth and displacement. These are neighborhoods where the low-income* share of population has fallen since 2000 (indicating that an area has grown less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has grown since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents see the area as an attractive place to live).
• Economically declining neighborhoods, which are those experiencing the kind of population changes associated with abandonment and poverty concentration. These are neighborhoods where the low-income share of population has grown since 2000 (indicating that an area has more less poor overall) and the absolute number of non-low-income residents has fallen since 2000 (indicating that middle-income residents do not see the area as an attractive place to live).
Two variants of this measure exist, and a separate table is provided for each. They are:
• In the upper set of tables, a strong, narrow measure, which only includes census tracts that have a change of +/-5 percent or greater in low-income population share, and a change of +/-10 percent for non-low-income population. This approach classifies fewer neighborhoods overall, excluding areas with only small changes in their income profile. This is the more robust and preferred measure. It is also the measure used in the accompanying maps.
• In the lower set of tables, a weak, broad measure, which includes all census tracts with any change that meet the criteria for the two categories above, with no cutoffs for scale. This approach classifies more neighborhoods overall, but is noisier, because it includes tracts with very small population changes. In addition, because this report relies on American Community Survey sampling data with margins of error, this measure is more likely to include erroneously classified tracts. However, this broad measure can provide a useful outer estimate of the scale of neighborhood economic expansion and decline.
Three sets of tables are provided. They are:
• Figures for the entire metropolitan region, aggregating central cities and suburbs into one set of tables. • Figures for central cities. • Figures for suburban areas, defined as any area in the metropolitan region not included in a central city.
This includes incorporated and unincorporated communities.
Each table depicts the number of people in each of the two neighborhood categories, both overall and in various population subsets. It also shows the number of housing units of various types in each neighborhood category.
• 2016 Share indicates what share of the regional, city, or suburban population of a given group live in expanding or declining tracts. The box is shaded in accordance with the size of the share.
• 2016 Total indicates the absolute number of individuals in a given group that live in expanding or declining census tracts.
• Net Change since 2000 indicates the change of population of a subgroup in expanding or declining tracts since 2000, both in percentage and in absolute terms. These have been colored to indicate the type of change. In economically expanding tracts, green indicates net growth while blue indicates net displacement. In economically declining tracts, red indicates net poverty concentration while purple indicates net abandonment. Darker shades indicate larger percentage changes.
* For the purposes of this report, “low-income” is classified as individuals at 200 percent of poverty line or less.
2
DETAILS ON MAPS
Neighborhood change has also been mapped by individual census tracts, incorporating the same data used to create the tables above.
The map incorporates the strong measure of neighborhood change used to create the tables. In the maps, tracts have been subdivided into four categories:
• Economically expanding areas with low-income displacement, indicated in blue, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places undergoing changes traditionally associated with gentrification, in which economic pressures push out lower incomes while higher income residents arrive.
• Economically expanding areas with overall growth, indicated in green, where a neighborhood’s income profile is improving while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places with significant new housing construction, where residents across the income spectrum are arriving.
• Economically declining areas with abandonment, indicated in purple, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population declines on net. These are typically places experiencing the worst neighborhood economic decline, with people across the income spectrum leaving and outright depopulation occurring.
• Economically declining areas with poverty concentration, indicated in red, where a neighborhood’s income profile is worsening while low-income population increases on net. These are typically places where higher-income flight and eroding housing stocks are causing rapid demographic and economic transition, contributing to the impoverishment of the area.
The categories are also shaded to indicate the scale of low-income population change within the census tracts.
The maps allow intra-regional comparisons of observed neighborhood change. However, because these classifications have been made using American Community Survey data with margins of error, precise measures are not possible and it is likely that some individual tracts are erroneously classified. As a consequence, readers are advised to focus more on clusters of tracts undergoing similar changes rather than individual outliers, particularly outliers with smaller-scale changes.
*The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very sl ight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed.
Data: U.S. Census.
Owner Units Owner UnitsRenter Units Renter UnitsVacant Units Vacant Units
Seniors (65 and up) Seniors (65 and up)U.S.-Born U.S.-Born
Foreign-Born Foreign-Born
Children (Under 18) Children (Under 18)Young Adults (18-34) Young Adults (18-34)
Adults (35 to 64) Adults (35 to 64)
Families in Poverty Families in PovertyNon-Poor Families Non-Poor Families
*The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very sl ight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed.
Data: U.S. Census.
Owner Units Owner UnitsRenter Units Renter UnitsVacant Units Vacant Units
Seniors (65 and up) Seniors (65 and up)U.S.-Born U.S.-Born
Foreign-Born Foreign-Born
Children (Under 18) Children (Under 18)Young Adults (18-34) Young Adults (18-34)
Adults (35 to 64) Adults (35 to 64)
Families in Poverty Families in PovertyNon-Poor Families Non-Poor Families
*The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very sl ight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed.
Data: U.S. Census.
Owner Units Owner UnitsRenter Units Renter UnitsVacant Units Vacant Units
Seniors (65 and up) Seniors (65 and up)U.S.-Born U.S.-Born
Foreign-Born Foreign-Born
Children (Under 18) Children (Under 18)Young Adults (18-34) Young Adults (18-34)
Adults (35 to 64) Adults (35 to 64)
Families in Poverty Families in PovertyNon-Poor Families Non-Poor Families
*The figures in the lower set of tables may include many neighborhoods with very sl ight demographic changes, and are especially sensitive to sampling error. These tables are best understood as depicting an aggressive outer estimate of population shifts, as compared to the estimates in the upper set of tables, which are more robustly observed.
Data: U.S. Census.
Owner Units Owner UnitsRenter Units Renter UnitsVacant Units Vacant Units
Seniors (65 and up) Seniors (65 and up)U.S.-Born U.S.-Born
Foreign-Born Foreign-Born
Children (Under 18) Children (Under 18)Young Adults (18-34) Young Adults (18-34)
Adults (35 to 64) Adults (35 to 64)
Families in Poverty Families in PovertyNon-Poor Families Non-Poor Families
Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Expansion
Population Change by Subgroup in Neighborhoods Experiencing Strong Economic Decline
(Cleveland Suburbs) (Cleveland Suburbs)
7
Painesville(t)
2
8
2
480
LORAIN
MEDINA
SUMMIT
PORTAGE
GEAUGA
CUYAHOGA
LAKE
90
80
271
83
44
422
42
322
480
77
90
80
Cleveland
Avon
Mentor
Lorain
Elyria
Solon
Aurora
Stow
Hudson
Troy (t)Parma
Leroy (t)
Auburn (t)
Bath (t)
Hiram (t)
York (t)
Eaton (t) Mantua (t)
Burton (t)
Grafton (t)
Newbury (t)
Munson (t)
Hinckley (t)
Carlisle (t)
Ravenna (t)
Chester (t)
Pittsfield (t)
Kirtland
Streetsboro
Strongsville
Liverpool (t)
Granger (t)
Columbia (t)
Concord (t)
LaGrange (t)Freedom (t)
Chardon (t)
Claridon (t)
Euclid
Penfield (t)
Shalersville (t)
Russell (t)
Bainbridge (t)
Brecksville
Litchfield (t)
Hambden (t)
Westlake
Cuyahoga FallsMedina (t)
New Russia (t)
North Ridgeville
Charlestown (t)
Boston (t)
North RoyaltonTwinsburg
Wellington (t)Franklin (t)
Amherst (t)
Avon Lake
Berea
Sheffield (v)
AmherstNorth Olmsted
Brownhelm (t)
BedfordBrookPark
Oberlin
Willoughby Hills
Ravenna
LakewoodBay Village
BrunswickHills (t)
Wickliffe
Shaker Heights
Brunswick
Willoughby
Macedonia
Olmsted (t)
Eastlake
Richfield(v)
Richfield(t)
BroadviewHeights
Independence
Painesville
GatesMills (v)
SagamoreHills (t)
PepperPike
Elyria (t)
Brooklyn
RockyRiver Beachwood
ClevelandHeights
GarfieldHeights
SevenHills
Lynd-hurst
WaltonHills (v)
MiddleburgHeights
Grafton (v)
MorelandHills (v)
HuntingValley (v)
Chardon (v)
SouthEuclid
MapleHeights
BostonHeights (v)
ValleyView
Peninsula(v)
OrangeFairviewPark
KirtlandHills (v)
Mayfield (v)
WaiteHill (v)
OlmstedFalls
HighlandHeights
ParmaHeights
BedfordHeights
Wellington (v)
Oak-wood(v)
Willowick
NorthfieldCenter (t)
MayfieldHeights
Rich-mond
Heights
Perry (v)
SouthRussell (v)
EastCleveland
Warrensville Hts
Glen-willow (v)
Sheffield Lake
Bentley-ville (v)
Garrettsville (v)
LaGrange (v)
Cuyahoga Hts.
SouthAmherst (v)
Mantua (v)
Chagrin Falls (v)
Reminderville (v)
Sheffield (t)
Bratenahl (v)
HighlandHills (v)
Silver Lake (v)
Burton (v)
UniversityHeights
Hiram (v)
BrooklynHeights
Mentor-on-the-Lake
Northfield (v)
FairportHarbor
(v)
North Randall (v)
Grand River (v)
Chagrin Falls (t)
Brady Lake (v)
Newburgh Hts.Woodmere (v)
Aquilla (v)
Timberlake (v)
Sugar Bush Knolls (v)
Lakeline (v)
Data Sources: Geolytics, U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 SF3; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016 American Community Survey (5-year data).
Lake Erie
8
21
76
76
77
AkronNorton Suffield (t)
Copley (t)
Kent
Brimfield (t)Tallmadge
Barberton
Fairlawn
MunroeFalls
Lakemore (v)
Moga-dore (v)
SilverLake (v)
0 5
Miles
71
CLEVELAND-AKRON (CENTRAL) REGION:Gentrification and Economic Decline by Census Tractwith Net Change in Low Income Population, 2000-2016
LINCOLN
Low Income Displacement:(0)< -700 Low Income
Economic Expansion:
(10)-1 to -699 Low IncomeOverall Growth:
(5)1 to 699 Low Income(1)> 700 Low Income
Abandonment:(12)< -700 Low Income
Economic Decline:
(60)-1 to -699 Low IncomeLow Income Concentration:
(313)1 to 699 Low Income(53)> 700 Low Income
Economic expansion/decline is definedif a tract has a +/- 10% change in middle-high-income population and a -/+ 5%change in low-income population share, respectively.