Can Cleveland Become A '15-minute City'? Experts Say It's A Real Possibility

[edale]

Isn't it odd that the Middle Eastern immigrants went to Hamtramck and Dearborn rather than Detroit proper? I guess SW Detroit has a decent Mexican population, which has helped it to retain more of its fabric than most of the rest of the city, at least commercially. But overall, it seems weird to me that Detroit's immigrant population largely resides in enclaves within or right next to the city.

[Crawford]

Hamtramck and (East) Dearborn were/are poor but intact enclaves that transitioned from white to immigrant. I mean, they had to go somewhere.

The Mexican neighborhoods in Detroit proper are more like Hamtramck/East Dearborn than black Detroit neighborhoods. They replaced Appalachian whites, and that portion of Detroit proper never had a sizable black population, not even today.

If you look at a map of Detroit, basically everything south of West Warren Ave. has never had a black population. Maybe a small handful of black Dominicans and Puerto Ricans, around Michigan Ave., but not African Americans.

Of course, almost everywhere in the city proper except for SW and Downtown, is 90%+ black.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Can Cleveland Become A '15-minute City'? Experts Say It's A Real Possibility

One thing that makes Cleveland an outlier, even in America, is it has abnormally wide streets.

I feel like the spreading out of the city and population would make it even more difficult to achieve the '15 minute city' status.

https://streetwidths.its.ucla.edu/

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Hamtramck and (East) Dearborn were/are poor but intact enclaves that transitioned from white to immigrant. I mean, they had to go somewhere.

The Mexican neighborhoods in Detroit proper are more like Hamtramk/East Dearborn than black Detroit neighborhoods. They replaced Appalachian whites, and that portion of Detroit proper never had a sizable black population, not even today.

This same dynamic is really seen throughout the Rust Belt. Latinos (and for the most part working-class Asians, where they exist) generally don't move into black neighborhoods, they move into working-class white neighborhoods.

In Chicago there are proportionately way less Latinos living in the South Side than there are even in the richest white neighborhoods like Gold Coast.

The dynamic isn't the case everywhere in the country though. In Seattle blacks and Asians live in the same neighborhoods. In New England and New York Latinos and blacks are for the most part at least semi-integrated. So it may have more to do with the overall level of blight of black neighborhoods in the Rust Belt, and how there's generally better affordable housing options out there.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

One thing that makes Cleveland an outlier, even in America, is it has abnormally wide streets.

I feel like the spreading out of the city and population would make it even more difficult to achieve the '15 minute city' status.

https://streetwidths.its.ucla.edu/

I don't trust this website data at all.

It claims that this street near my house is 63 feet wide!

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7213...7i16384!8i8192

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I don't trust this website data at all.

It claims that this street near my house is 63 feet wide!

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7213...7i16384!8i8192

It's probably measuring public rights of way, not road width.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I don't trust this website data at all.

It claims that this street near my house is 63 feet wide!

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7213...7i16384!8i8192

It probably includes the sidewalk and parkway easement if those are public ROWs.

A typical Chicago ROW including is 66 feet, so your location is probably in the ballpark.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

In Chicago there are proportionately way less Latinos living in the South Side than there are even in the richest white neighborhoods like Gold Coast.

that's not true.

the overwhelming majority of chicago's latinos live in two broad swaths on the northwest and southwest sides of the city, with another smaller concentration WAY down in the very far SE corner of the city along the indiana border.




additionally, while the bulk of the latino takeover thus far on the southside has been latinos moving into formerly white ethnic working/lower middle class areas, there is now substantive movement by latinos into community areas currently experiencing black flight.

here are the top community areas in the city ranked by increase in latino population. bolded ones are/were heavily black CAs that all experienced black flight las decade.


Top Increases in Hispanic Population 2010 - 2020:

1. West Englewood: +17.49 percentage points
2. Garfield Ridge: +14.72
3. Clearing: +13.82
4. Chicago Lawn: +13.72
5. Fuller Park: +11.32
6. Dunning: +11.02
7. Austin: +10.4
8. New City: +10.17
9. Ashburn: +9.78
10. Hegewisch: +8.14
11. Montclare: +7.41
12. West Lawn: +7.31
13. Archer Heights: +6.14
14. North Lawndale: +5.66
15. Englewood: +5.53
16. West Elsdon: +5.47
17. Humboldt Park: +5.24
18. Jefferson Park: +4.77
19. West Garfield Park: +4.7
20. Portage Park: +4.65
21. Norwood Park: +4.3
22. East Garfield Park: +4.19
23. South Lawndale: +3.91
24. East Side: +3.65
25. Mount Greenwood: +3.47

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that's not true.

the overwhelming majority of chicago's latinos live in two broad swaths on the northwest and southwest sides of the city, with another smaller concentration WAY down in the very far SE corner of the city along the indiana border.




additionally, while the bulk of the latino takeover thus far on the southside has been latinos moving into formerly white ethnic working/lower middle class areas, there is now substantive movement by latinos into community areas currently experiencing black flight.

here are the top community areas in the city ranked by increase in latino population. bolded ones are/were heavily black CAs that all experienced black flight las decade.


Top Increases in Hispanic Population 2010 - 2020:

1. West Englewood: +17.49 percentage points
2. Garfield Ridge: +14.72
3. Clearing: +13.82
4. Chicago Lawn: +13.72
5. Fuller Park: +11.32
6. Dunning: +11.027. Austin: +10.4
8. New City: +10.17
9. Ashburn: +9.78
10. Hegewisch: +8.14
11. Montclare: +7.41
12. West Lawn: +7.31
13. Archer Heights: +6.14
14. North Lawndale: +5.66
15. Englewood: +5.53
16. West Elsdon: +5.47
17. Humboldt Park: +5.24
18. Jefferson Park: +4.77
19. West Garfield Park: +4.7
20. Portage Park: +4.65
21. Norwood Park: +4.3
22. East Garfield Park: +4.19
23. South Lawndale: +3.91
24. East Side: +3.65
25. Mount Greenwood: +3.47

You can directly see on the map you posted that most of the areas of Chicago with less than 5% Latino population are black portions of the South Side (which is what I meant when I said South Side, obviously not including neighborhoods like East Side).

Southwest Chicago isn't part of the South Side is it? it's its own thing right? Regardless, I had a good idea of the geography, though maybe not the terminology used.

My core point is there are more Latinos living even in the richest white neighborhoods than the heart of black Chicago...which looks to be true for now.

Did the black areas with a rising Latino percentage actually gain Latinos? Or did the black population just fall while the Latino population remains the same.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Southwest Chicago isn't part of the South Side is it?

yes. it's a sub-region of the south side.

helpful tip: anywhere in the city where sox fans outnumber cubs fans is "southside".

Originally Posted by eschaton

My core point is there are more Latinos living even in the richest white neighborhoods than the heart of black Chicago...which looks to be true for now.

oh, gotcha. your wording confused me because i thought you were trying to say that most latinos in chicago live in wealthy downtown/north lakefront hoods, which is nowhere remotely close to being true.

Originally Posted by eschaton

Did the black areas with a rising Latino percentage actually gain Latinos?

yes. some of the big movers on the list above saw actual gains in latinos.


current/former black CA's by latino population numerical increase last decade:

austin: +9,868
chicago lawn: +7,808*
west englewood: +5,058
new city: +4,062
ashburn: +4,025**
north lawndale:+1,903
englewood: +1,280
auburn gresham: +1,153
east garfield park: +814
west garfield park: +809

(*) the combination of latino increase and black decrease caused chicago lawn to flip from majority black to majority latino last decade.

(**) the combination of latino increase and black decrease caused ashburn to flip from plurality black to plurality latino last decade.


the movement of latinos into the traditional black belt CA's of the south and west sides is real and it's happening right now.

and it's leading to a fairly big political crisis as the city council is currently paralyzed in redrawing the city ward map as the black and latino caucuses are at odds with each other over how to adapt to these changing demographics.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes. some of the big moves on the list above saw actual gains in latinos.


current/former black CA's by latino population numerical increase last decade:

austin: +9,868
chicago lawn: +7,808
west englewood: +5,058
new city: +4,062
ashburn: +4,025
north lawndale:+1,903
englewood: +1,280
auburn gresham: +1,153
east garfield park: +814
west garfield park: +809


the movement of latinos into the traditional black belt CA's of the south and west sides is real and it's happening right now.

and it's leading to a fairly big political crisis as the city council is currently paralyzed in redrawing the city ward map as the black and latino caucuses are at odds with each other over how to adapt to these changing demographics.

So it looks like Latinos are basically moving into black areas on the fringes of the existing Latino neighborhoods on the West/Southwest sides - which would make sense, considering the Latino population is growing and some Latino neighborhoods on the West Side are gentrifying.

I suppose it's possible in the longer run the black west side gets squeezed out of existence entirely. It's only around 175,000 people after all - much smaller than the heart of the black South Side, which is unlikely to ever demographically shift.

[westak]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

One thing that makes Cleveland an outlier, even in America, is it has abnormally wide streets.

I feel like the spreading out of the city and population would make it even more difficult to achieve the '15 minute city' status.

https://streetwidths.its.ucla.edu/

Compared to where? Certainly not the sunbelt or most of the Midwest. I can promise you that Clevelands streets are not 2x's or more wider than Houston or Raleigh. Something is way off with this calcluation.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's probably measuring public rights of way, not road width.

Originally Posted by galleyfox

It probably includes the sidewalk and parkway easement if those are public ROWs.

A typical Chicago ROW including is 66 feet, so your location is probably in the ballpark.

Well maybe it is measuring the right of way, but public right of way is not street width.

Utility easements might exist, but that's a pretty poor proxy for street width.

Another typical 50-ft wide Miami street:

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.7218...7i16384!8i8192

This little UCLA undergrad research project website is bullshit.

[Steely Dan]

the street width thing seems very minor IMO.

here's a very typical residential side-street in my chicago neighborhood.



curb to curb: 30' wide

building to building: 80' wide

that might seem like an extremely wide street to someone from some rarified corner of east coast urbanism like northend boston or what have you, but my census tract still has a density of 26,000 ppsm, which places it in like the top 5% of census tracts nationally for population density.

so respectable population density is possible with wider streets. and cleveland once had neighborhoods with population densities in a similar ballpark to my neighborhood, but today the city doesn't have a single tract over 15,000 ppsm, and only 15 tracts over 10,000 ppsm.

and as mentioned earlier in the thread, somewhere around 20,000 ppsm is when areas tend to really start tilting in a more functionally urban/walkable/"15 minute city" direction.

cleveland doesn't need narrower streets, it needs more people!

[mhays]

Maybe it's 20,000 if the area is primarily residents and retail that serves them. To add some nuance, jobs, hotels, and attractions can replace some of that figure.

The most vibrant tracts tend to mix a lot of uses, which are each strong in different times/days/seasons.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

So it looks like Latinos are basically moving into black areas on the fringes of the existing Latino neighborhoods on the West/Southwest sides - which would make sense, considering the Latino population is growing and some Latino neighborhoods on the West Side are gentrifying.

I suppose it's possible in the longer run the black west side gets squeezed out of existence entirely. It's only around 175,000 people after all - much smaller than the heart of the black South Side, which is unlikely to ever demographically shift.

correct on both counts.

i don't think the black west side gets squeezed out entirely in our lifetime, but the trend line for a diminished black west side is there.

but what's interesting, is that on balance, that whole part of the city is in reality getting whiter from gentrification pushing out from downtown, while the black population continues to plummet, and the latino population sort of stays even as some westisde CAs gain latinos and others lose as that population spreads out.

on the map below, i'm counting the "westside" as the following community areas: 23, 24, 25, 26 , 27, 28, 29, 30, 31.

"westside" white population change: +17,178

"westside" latino population change: +2,377

"westside" black population change: -31,537






Community Areas with purple dots on the map above:

15. Portage Park - went from white majority to white plurality
16. Irving Park - went from latino plurality to white plurality
22. Logan Square - went from latino majority to white majority

60. Bridgeport - went from white plurality to asian plurality

56. Garfield Ridge - went from white majority to latino majority
64. Clearing - went from white majority to latino majority
66. Chicago Lawn - went from black plurality to latino majority
70. Ashburn - went from black plurality to latino plurality

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by mhays

Maybe it's 20,000 if the area is primarily residents and retail that serves them. To add some nuance, jobs, hotels, and attractions can replace some of that figure.

The most vibrant tracts tend to mix a lot of uses, which are each strong in different times/days/seasons.

But unless you are talking about a CBD where lots of people are taking in mass transit, most of those non-residents will be driving into the area. The point is 20,000 is the minimum where a robust business district can be supported solely by people who just happen to be walking by.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

correct on both counts.

i don't know if the black west side gets squeezed out entirely in our lifetime, but the trend line certainly has things going in that direction at the moment.

but what's interesting, is that on balance, that whole part of the city is in reality getting whiter from gentrification pushing out from downtown, while the black population continues to plummet, and the latino population sort of stays even as some westisde CAs gain latinos and others lose as that population spreads out.

on the map below, i'm counting the "westside" as the following community areas: 23, 24, 25, 26 , 27, 28, 29, 30, 31.

"westside" white population change: +17,178

"westside" latino population change: +2,377

"westside" black population change: -31,537






Community Areas with purple dots on the map above:

15. Portage Park - went from white majority to white plurality
16. Irving Park - went from latino plurality to white plurality
22. Logan Square - went from latino majority to white majority

60. Bridgeport - went from white plurality to asian plurality

56. Garfield Ridge - went from white majority to latino majority
64. Clearing - went from white majority to latino majority
66. Chicago Lawn - went from black plurality to latino majority
70. Ashburn - went from black plurality to latino plurality

Why hasn't Avondale shifted whiter while areas on both sides of it have?

[mhays]

Originally Posted by eschaton

But unless you are talking about a CBD where lots of people are taking in mass transit, most of those non-residents will be driving into the area. The point is 20,000 is the minimum where a robust business district can be supported solely by people who just happen to be walking by.

I'm also thinking secondary urban districts with decent transit, including areas anchored by universities, hospitals, etc.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

(...)

that might seem like an extremely wide street to someone from some rarified corner of the east coast urbanism like northend boston or what have you, but my census tract still has a density of 26,000 ppsm, which places it in like the top 5% of census tracts nationally for population density.

so respectable population density is possible with wider streets. and cleveland once had neighborhoods with population densities in a similar ballpark to my neighborhood, but today the city doesn't have a single tract over 15,000 ppsm, and only 15 tracts over 10,000 ppsm.

and as mentioned earlier in the thread, somewhere around 20,000 ppsm is when areas tend to really start tilting in a more functionally urban/walkable/"15 minute city" direction.

cleveland doesn't need narrower streets, it needs more people!

Cleveland is doing fine Downtown. The Tower City census track jumped from 1,944 (2010) to 5,524 (2020). If this keep going, it won't take much longer for them to achieve respectable densities in this area.

Today is only 7,000 ppsm, but that's a bit misleading as half of the tract is river bank, railway yards and freeways. The actual build up areas is probably close to 15,000 ppsm and growing at insane rates.

That's a good start for their 15-minute concept.