Courtesy of Sean Posey

Many people are not shy in expressing disdain for the kind of photography that has been branded as “ruin porn.” Though I have to say—as a Clevelander inundated with vacancy to the point one becomes forced to create a new perception of decay else shrink into a corner — I don’t get too moved by the critiques.

Why?

Well, let’s get the name thing out of the way first, because if the practice of photographing industrial and urban ruins was simply Ruin Photography as opposed to Ruin Porn then much of the debate wouldn’t exist. But it does. And we have the word “porn” to thank for it.

The power of language.

Because even before you get to analyze the practice of ruin photography on its own merit, you got the connotations of porn filmed over your judgment. And so the act of filming ruins becomes the act of filming filth, meaning the resultant audience is less interested in artistic quality than they are titillation. After all, it’s pornographic. It says so right in the name.

Framing, it’s an old trick, used by preschoolers and politicians alike, as the name “tattle-tale” sticks no less than “flip-flopper.” Framing can destroy in that sense, even in art. Just look at that period in the country’s history when being called a “communist” meant your films were socially perverse.

But in the end, framing on its own won’t hold up. And so evolve reasons to give the “porn” label some weight, if only to convince folks that ruin art is light, cheap, voyeuristic: a still shot of Hoarders mixed with Intervention, or for that matter all things reveling in America’s happiness with another’s pain.

Hoarder porn? Courtesy of A & E

One critique is journalistic laziness — Out of towner flies into Detroit and captures yet another over-dramatic shot of Detroit’s Michigan Central Depot before bolting. There is validity to this argument, but in and of itself it doesn’t disqualify the potential of the medium. After all, isn’t that on the schmuckiness of the artist instead of on the quality of the genre?

Another common critique centers on the fact there are no people in ruin porn shots. For such critics, it’s tasteless to document the ruins of cities without showcasing the people who live beside the decay. One critic writes:

“The one thing they [ruin photos] have in common no matter who has taken them is that there are never any people in them. And to me, that points to the problem. There are no people interacting with the ruins.”

Again, I don’t get it. Ruin porn is a thread of landscape photography. And I don’t remember Ansel Adams getting the business because his epic landscape shots didn’t have backpackers milling about. Of course critics will contend that traditional landscape shots aren’t intertwined with a city’s (and thus a people’s) demise, which brings us to the next most common critique: ruin porn sensationalizes the poor.

For example, in this post the author critiques German photographer Christian Burkert‘s series of photos titled “Last Exit Detroit” this way:

“What’s problematic about this approach [ruin porn] is that it does little but gawk at the cities and people in distress. In other words, it actually contributes to the problem by fueling the notion that Detroit (and depressed cities like it) are beyond help.”

Two things here: First, I am on the record saying that ruin porn outs the conditions of poverty, showing—like Jacob Riis’ seminal work did back in 1890—not so much how the other half lives, but what the other half lives with. Lord knows this is necessary. Plight and blight is to the eyes like one’s hand is to fire: instinctually distanced (See Mitt Romney’s latest quote about not being concerned about the “very poor”). The pause to reflect what has happened to us is needed here. Show it. Debate it. Shutting it down under the auspices of porn actually makes the living images dirtier than they are.

Second—and this speaks to the ruin porn critique in general—there is something of an amorphous/ambiguousness nature to the attacks that tells the creator and supporter of the medium that: you can’t win for losing.

For example, below is one of the photos from Burkert’s series, and there are some like it.

Here is another from the series, and there are many more like it.

Yeah, I don’t get it either. Far from “gawking” or “fueling” the notion that Detroit is beyond help, you know what I see? The aesthetic of a world I live in every day. Yes America, in the Rust Belt there is rust and wear and black people attempting to fix what’s broke. It’s not new here. Deal.

And about that indefinable nature of the attack, well, it is working. Note the frustration and confusion in Matthew Christopher’s great post Confessions Of A Ruin Pornographer: A Lurid Tale of Art, Double Standards, and Decay:

“The nebulous nature of the term and its use as an insult means that it can be employed without much consequence and is frustratingly difficult to rebut…Because the core definition is ill-defined and constantly shifting, there is no way to adequately defend yourself: whatever it is that you’re doing, you should be doing something else, but in the meanwhile your work bears the sleazy stigma of comparison to that of such esteemed photographers as those found in Hustler or Penthouse and you, by extension, are less an artist than a pornographer.”

Shut it down. Do something else. Stop making the gawking. Stop documenting decay. Ruin ain’t pretty.

Behind the “porn” grenades, these are the core messages that can be teased out. And I am coming to the conclusion that they are fed not so much by the more surface message that ruin porn is bad per se, but rather by something deeper—or an incapability in the American psyche to incorporate failure into the American dream.

To that end, I just came across this 1972 gem of a paragraph that touches on this incapability perfectly. It’s from a book prophetically entitled Urban Wilderness by urban historian Sam Bass Warner Jr.

“American Urban Life confuses us in its intermingling of endless repetition with ceaseless change. Consider our habitual responses. We do not see in the brand-new downtown apartment towers or the freshly carpeted suburban model home the inevitable repetition of failure which surely awaits them…The newness is a goal for family achievement, the reality of aging is either to be obliterated or escaped [italics mine]. The past is not seen in the present…These are deep habits of mind.”

Warner Jr. goes on:

“Since at least the founding of the Republic we have been concealing failure from ourselves with newness…Thus for generations we have dwelt in a self-created urban wilderness of time and space, confounding ourselves with its lusty growth and rising to periodic alarms in the night. It is no accident that we have no urban history.”

But of course we do have history. And it’s messy—tinged with both beauty and filth. And it will exist regardless if its documentation is shamed to a halt.

–By Richey Piiparinen

I especially dig the Edward DeBartolo intro, where he claims prophetically that downtown will decline and the suburbs will rise. What is the next frontier for Cleveland? Will it continue to be farther out into farmlands? Will a return to the city really take hold in greater Cleveland like it has in more prosperous metros? Who is the Edward DeBartolo (Youngstown) of today? What would he say? Would he even bother with this region?

-A.S.

Everybody loves Youngstow's Lots 'o Green. Even babies!

In the heyday of Youngstown’s steel industry, wealthy families settled in the city’s Idora neighborhood, building solid, brick homes near Mill Creek Park. Trolley cars whistled down Glenwood Avenue, the neighborhood’s main thoroughfare, and shot-and-a-beer bars like the Empire Club Tavern served steel workers coming off their shifts.

Yet today, Idora’s decline is like an oft-repeated refrain from a Springsteen song. The community is packed with empty lots, foreclosed homes and corner stores hocking beer and cigarettes. The Idora amusement park, dubbed “Youngstown’s Million Dollar Playground” when it was built, burned down in ’84 and left an empty lot behind.

Something is happening in Idora these days, however, and green shoots of renewal are starting to show. Over the past two summers, residents have planted gardens on empty lots, and homeowners have painted their porches and spruced up yards. The city has torn down dozens of eyesores, and a local nonprofit has fixed up vacant homes.

These visible improvements are part of a concentrated effort to repurpose vacant land that has been dubbed “Lots of Green.” It is being led by the Youngstown Neighborhood Development Corporation (YNDC), a nonprofit community development corporation that is giving Idora a strategic lift by focusing resources on this once-vibrant area.

“Idora was teetering on the brink – yet now residents have more confidence in their community,” says Presley Gillespie, Executive Director of YNDC. Not every neighborhood can be saved, he admits: “We’re making strategic investments.”

Of course, you wouldn’t be wrong to wonder how isolated patches of wildflowers, fruit trees and tomato plants, no matter how beautiful, can revive a community’s fortunes. In recent decades, Youngstown has lost half of its population and been ravaged by foreclosure. On many streets, there are more vacant lots than occupied houses, leaving hardy residents stranded on streets plagued by an eerie, ghost-town-like feeling.

Yet Idora’s leaders say that the “Lots of Green” program is about far more than just putting lipstick on a pig when reconstructive surgery is needed. More than mere beautification, land reuse is inspiring hope, shoring up home values, growing fresh produce, laying the groundwork for development and adding new jobs, they say.

“We’re creating economic opportunities,” says Gillespie, who cites examples in the new investments made in older homes throughout the area, as well as a new grocery store that broke ground last fall on Glenwood Ave. “We’re providing job training to youth that live here, and creating urban farms where residents can sell produce,” he adds.

For Gillespie, who spent more than a decade working in community development lending for major banks before taking the helm of the newly-created YNDC a few years ago, saving Idora has become something of a calling card and personal mission.

“Idora is our flagship, and we want to create a model of neighborhood transformation,” he says proudly. “This is the largest land reclamation project in Youngstown history.”

If not exactly transformed yet, plucky Idora is showing some signs of improvement. Since Lots of Green launched in the summer of 2010, the program has reclaimed more than 150 urban lots (about 17 acres of city land). Some completed projects include community gardens, side yard expansions, pocket parks, a storm water mitigation demonstration site, a block-long soil research site and a 2.5 acre urban farm.

“We now have five community gardens with over 100 registered gardeners,” Presley says. “We’re igniting innovative projects and empowering residents to get involved.”

To assist residents with implementing their projects, YNDC offers small grants ranging from $500 to $10,000 as well as hands-on technical assistance. The group has also published a how-to guide for residents, including tips on tracking down evasive property owners, a list of micro-loan programs and examples of creative reuse. YNDC has also created a catalogue of successful projects and a photo bank to share with residents.

To build on its successful Lots of Green program, YNDC has also initiated a program to acquire, rehabilitate and sell foreclosed homes. Using funds from the Neighborhood Stabilization Program, part of the federal stimulus program, YNDC has renovated five homes, three of which are sold. The homes typically sell for under $50,000; down payment assistance and homeownership counseling are offered to buyers.

After two years, the success of the Lots of Green program is finally starting to show, says Presley. Last year, YNDC attracted a 5,000 square foot grocery store, Bottom Dollar Foods, to Glenwood. In the past, there was no grocery store in Idora, despite the fact that over 60 percent of residents here do not own cars. The Atlanta-based grocery chain also plans to build additional stores in other Youngstown neighborhoods.

YNDC also recently launched Lots of Green 2.0, which expanded the successful program citywide. Projects slated for 2012 include a practice putting and chipping green for youth, conversion of a derelict commercial building into a colorful sunflower patch and a recreation field slated to be built on empty, polluted commercial land.

Thanks to a $70,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, YNDC will also soon expand its land reuse program to other municipalities along the Mahoning River Valley Corridor. Using the Lots of Green program as a model, YNDC will begin offering small grants to pioneering land reuse projects in these cities.

Since launching Lots of Green two summers ago, Presley has gotten calls from other cities across Ohio and the U.S. seeking to learn from its model. One parallel effort exists in Cleveland, which recently launched Phase II of “Reimagining Cleveland,” an initiative that provides small grants to entrepreneurs who take on land reuse projects. In its first year, Reimagining Cleveland funded 56 new urban farms, community gardens and fruit tree orchards in neighborhoods that have been hard-hit by foreclosure and blight.

Elsewhere in Ohio, the Western Reserve Land Conservancy last year launched the Thriving Communities Institute (TCI) in Akron and Summit County. Director Jim Rokakis landed a spot on 60 Minutes last month to tout his crusade against blight before a national audience. And in metro Columbus, Franklin County officials are working to create a countywide land bank to repurpose thousands of bank-owned properties.

“People are starting to see land reuse as a new approach to neighborhood revitalization in post-industrial cities,” says Presley. “Youngstown now has more momentum than we’ve had in the past 50 years, and we’re starting to move forward again.”

To summarize, Ohio Gov. John Kasich has put off funding the second phase of Cleveland’s Innerbelt Bridge — a vital and decrepit passage to downtown Cleveland — until 2023. Also in jeopardy is funding for Cleveland’s West Shoreway highway-to-boulevard project, which is considered by Cleveland’s regional chamber of commerce to be the most important project to Greater Cleveland’s economy.

The Kasich Administration is strapped. No one is denying that. And that is exactly the administration’s excuse for leaving greater Cleveland (the state’s largest population and economic center) out of its highway spending while favoring rural sprawl projects. In his characteristic aggressive style, Kasich blamed past administrations for setting up unrealistic expectations among Cleveland leaders.

“Look, for many, many governors’ terms, Ohioans have been misled, plain and simple. ‘You want a project, we’ll get you a project, don’t worry about it.’ Well we’re $1.6 billion short.”

Meanwhile, shocked observers have speculated that the Inner-Belt Bridge decision is a political play by the Kasich Administration to build support for his plan to privatize the Ohio Turnpike, a proposal that was shot down by the state legislature recently.

Kasich denied being motivated by political reasons, but did not waste the opportunity to promote his privatization plan in the Plain Dealer, saying “I’ve got to tell you, you get a couple billion dollars from either bonding against the revenue stream or you get a couple billion dollars from leasing it for a period of time where we maintain underlying control. We have to absolutely look at that.”

Ok. So I’ve got to say, I’ve got nothing against infrastructure privatization on principle. There are good infrastructure privatization examples and there are bad. Indiana’s Turnpike privatization is a good example, from what I’ve read. But there are far more bad examples than good.

Chicago’s parking meters are the classic cautionary tale — a total catastrophe, from the perspective of public interest. The city sold 35,000 meters to Morgan Stanley (under a 75 year lease) for $1.15 billion. The closed-door deal is expected to net Morgan Stanley ten times that amount. Meanwhile, the city of Chicago blew through the money in a few years. Chicago could have earned nearly a billion more dollars up front had it just raised meter rates itself and bonded out the revenue, according to Chicago’s inspector general.

Here’s the thing about privatization of public infrastructure: the government is essentially brokering a deal to sell some very valuable public property. It can be done right, but it takes very shrewd political leadership to fully understand the value of that infrastructure and negotiate a good deal for taxpayers’ investment. The whole process is vulnerable to sweetheart deals and swindling, Chicago being a particularly egregious example.

The question I ask myself as a taxpayer on the subject of the Ohio Turnpike, is do I trust John Kasich (a former Lehman Brothers banker) and ODOT Director Jerry Wray (a former asphalt industry lobbiest) to negotiate on behalf of the public in good faith rather than do political favors for well-connected friends that could potentially benefit them financially in the future? The answer is: no I don’t. I wish I did, but I truly do not.

Infrastructure privatization deals are very, very, very complicated business transactions. It would be next to impossible for the average taxpayer or media representative to fairly evaluate any proposal — so government trust is really critical.

Even putting financial details aside, Kasich’s case for privatization is a bad one. John Kasich says he wants to sell the Ohio Turnpike to use the money to plug a hole in the state’s infrastructure budget. He told the Plain Dealer that he would not raise the gas tax (really the only responsible course of action) because he “wants Ohio to be competitive.”

John Kasich has strange ideas about what makes a place competitive — or maybe not so strange as much as simplistic. Are we to believe it need not matter if Ohio’s bridges are falling down, it’s roads in disrepair, traffic congestion preventing access to its major cities? All that matters to competitiveness is low taxes.

Were that the case, Mississippi, the state with the lowest personal tax burden, would be the most competitive state in the nation. Instead, it is the state with the highest obesity rates, the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, the worst dental and educational outcomes. Mississippi is the state that appears at the bottom of just about every measure of well being worth recording.

Meanwhile, places that have invested in good, 21st Century infrastructure, including rail transportation — bike infrastructure and smart land use planning — are eating Ohio’s lunch, and by that I mean New York, Chicago, Portland, Washington, etc. People who live in the Portland region save a combined total of $2.9 billion annually over similarly sized cities thanks to the investments they have made in their infrastructure that allows them to choose cheaper modes of transportation including transit, biking and walking. That’s money that recirculates within its economy, rather than going overseas. That’s money in Ohio we flush down the toilet because our governor doesn’t like trains.

John Kasich wants to sell the Ohio Turnpike just to solve a short-term funding problem. In essence, his plan just pushes Ohio’s infrastructure funding problem along to the next governor (something John Kasich seems completely oblivious of even while scolding past governors for doing so).

If Ohio is going to sell the turnpike and receive a one-time influx of cash for infrastructure, we need to have a better, more sustainable use for it than propping up an transportation system that overreliant on capital-intensive, road capacity projects, which have outstripped our ability to pay for them and meanwhile, caused a host of social problems too numerous to name here.

There are better uses for Ohio’s scarce transportation resources than bypassing Portsmouth and adding interchanges outside of shrinking Canton (projects that are slated receive funding ahead of the Inner Belt). One of the very best uses of public infrastructure money would have been for the state of Ohio to surrender pittance in transportation money it would have cost to operate 3C rail (less than it costs the state to mow highway medians,) a truly viable alternative to highway development. Instead, Kasich doubled-down on the absolute most expensive and inefficient form of transportation there is — single occupancy vehicles. Now he complains about the sad financial state of ODOT.

What Ohio needs is alternatives to 25-minute highway commutes. And the alternatives are vastly cheaper, in both real dollars and return to the public. John Kasich and ODOT Director Jerry Wray clearly have no concept of this whatsoever. So they want to have a fire sale with public infrastructure to support outdated transportation projects that have no business receiving state support in the first place.

There is absolutely no reason Cleveland’s Inner-Belt Bridge, a vital connection to the largest city in the largest metro region in the state — literally the state’s most important economic engine — should not be the number one project on the state dockets. It is extremely worrisome that suspicion has even been raised that the Governor of Ohio would play a political game of Russian Roulette with the state’s economy — especially being as fragile as it is right now — by withholding funds for this project.

If I had any faith in Governor John Kasich’s ability to govern — rather than do his best to chalk up ideological victories — I would be willing to consider his argument for privatizing the Ohio Turnpike. Unfortunately, this pair just haven’t given me any reason to, especially when it comes to transportation.

-A.S.

There aren’t too many of us Columbus transplants here. On the contrary, when I lived in Columbus, approximately 40 percent of everyone I knew was from Cleveland.

So anyway, when I’m meeting new people from Cleveland it generally comes up relatively soon in the conversation that I am from Columbus. Generally, this inspires one of two reactions:

#1. Wow, Columbus is so cool. (Cleveland sucks, etc.) This is less common, actually. And I get where people are coming from. There’s a lot more young people in Columbus, a lot more restaurants opening, a lot more money, for lack of a better term, etc.

#2. Oh, Columbus. Columbus is so white/boring, or some variation thereof. A lot of times, it goes like this: oh, well Columbus would be nothing if it wasn’t for Ohio State/the State Capital.

Columbusites are not innocent as well. Generally, when you tell them you live in Cleveland, they have an immediate response that contains the word “ghetto,” or some politer version thereof.

I want to propose a truce. I think fundamentally, both cities are jealous of each other. Cleveland is jealous of Columbus because it has a healthy economy and growth and youth. And Columbus is jealous of Cleveland because it has professional sports teams (sad to say) and your average person from Arizona has heard of it.

Here are my thoughts. The Clevelander complaint that Columbus is nothing but a glorified college town/state capital is 100 percent bogus. That is just not true. Columbus is a very business friendly city compared to Cleveland, I think. Columbus is home to many, many national brands that are household names, including, but not limited to, Limited Brands, Abercrombie and Fitch, Hollister, Bath and Body Works, Victoria’s Secret, White Castle, Wendy’s, Max and Ermas and Nationwide Insurance.

Growing up, and I grew up in a solidly middle-class Columbus community, my friends’ parents didn’t work for the university or the state. By en large, they were dentists, school administrators, bankers, teachers, etc.

On the other hand, Cleveland has some advantages. I do think Lake Erie is an advantage to Cleveland, even though the region has generally blown it taking advantage of this asset. Columbus, is sort of a geographic nowhere.

Cleveland has a lot of cool history, and everything that comes with that. It’s more urban (I see that as a positive, Greater Cleveland, I think, has yet to come around to that viewpoint [to its own detriment]).

If you could combine Cleveland and Columbus, it would be a really fantastic city. In the meantime, I think these cities should stop seeing each other as rivals and think about what they could learn from the other.

In the meantime, do you think we could lay off people that are from Columbus that live in Cleveland (all 12 of us)?

-A.S.

57% of Cleveland metro’s poor live outside of the city proper, whereas in Youngstown the figure is at an astounding 74%. Overall, the 17-county region saw a marked swelling of the disadvantaged.

Cuyahoga County’s 2010 poverty rate (approx 18%) increased by nearly 6%. The increase occurred because the county at-large got poorer. In all, 80% of Cleveland neighborhoods had an increased poverty rate, as did 75% of Cleveland suburbs.

Select geographies where poverty spiked significantly (approx 10% or more) were examined in detail. Two of these geographies, the Cleveland lakeside neighborhoods of Edgewater and North Collinwood, showed similar trends: an influx of minorities, an increase in extreme poverty (<$15,000), and a decrease in middle-class households.

Suburban municipalities with poverty spikes such as Berea and Cleveland Hts. showed a little bit of a different picture; that is, little racial shift, but still a dramatic decrease in the number of middle class households. In the case of Berea, there was also a major decline in the total number of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree.

Another interesting finding is that the widening of the gap between the rich and poor at the national level held true at the neighborhood level. For instance, Edgewater experienced a 126% increase in households making over $100,000. The figure was 51% for North Collinwood. That said, it appears that the lakeside home owners did fairly well for themselves over the last decade. Getting away from the lake, well, that appeared to be a different story…

There were a few bright spots. The inner core neighborhoods of Downtown and Tremont actually saw a decrease in their poverty rate. The reasons for this include a major increase in the number of middle-class and affluent households as well as an increase in residents who have at least a bachelor’s degree (in Downtown the increase was from 31 to 44 percent).

Now, considering the general area of Cleveland and the surrounding counties appears to be crumbling, it begs to ask the question: is the inner core turnaround for real? And can it effectively echo out as kind of a donut hole in reverse that leads from a downtown revitalization to an inner city revival to a more general city proper rebirth?

Well, I am doing a working paper for the Urban Institute and found something interesting. Look at the graph below (see corresponding map for reference to geographies). It charts percent change in population from 1940 to 2010 for Cleveland’s 5-county region. Notice the jump in Downtown population. But look too at the Tier 1 neighborhoods category (i.e., defined as neighborhoods bordering downtown). You see how there is no dip since 1970, but rather a gradual decline in how many people are leaving. Even the exurbian-influenced 5-county trend line can’t claim that.

Why is this important?  Perhaps a revitalization has been under way for some time now, but it hasn’t been noticed because we so often focus on that forest fire that is population loss, as opposed parsing a little bit–and seeing a small but persistent positive trending of Cleveland’s core.

–Richey Piiparinen

Well, the local politicians heard citizen concerns, and they have amended the plans. Good news, right?

Not exactly.  What they decided was to make the store even bigger than originally planned, creating a 100,000 sq. foot “Market District location” that will be “unique to Strongsville”.

And the uniqueness part exactly?  It’s design. You see, pols are sensitive to the plight of local businesses. As well, pols get the American psyche’s attraction to “being one’s own boss”, and they have their ear to the rail that the public has become turned off by the old, vapid stretch of big box strips that don’t exactly harken back to a time when Main St. meant that people walked and people talked and there were actual local businesses around.

The solution, then?  Let’s pretend. Said the assistant to the Strongsville mayor:

“The front facade will be totally different from other big box stores. It has different heights and sections and looks like different businesses are housed there. It will be very pleasant to look at…”

Part of that quote bears repeating because when I read it I lost my coffee. Looks like different businesses are housed there.

Nice. This idea of putting out small businesses and coming up with a design that disguises the eater of small business as a series of small businesses–it’s quite a concept. One that no doubt serves to keep up the illusion that sprawl works, or that pols care about small businesses for that matter.

In fact the design concept is but one part of a larger, failing economic development strategy in Ohio that can be mottoed as thus: Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

Now, why do we keep up with the illusion? Especially when the reality is a stagnant region with little-to-no job growth, and a concomitant infrastructure footprint that has become so unsustainable that ODOT recently announced that Cleveland’s Innerbelt Bridge—the connection between New York and Chicago—will have to remain weak-kneed at the risk of Minneapolis 2.0 despite assurances that the bridge plan was funded in totality.

Part of the reason for this—in a few words—is the sprawl lobby.

The sprawl lobby is real, and it’s powerful not only in Ohio but everywhere. It largely represents road and home construction companies, developers and home builder associations with deep pockets, and in the case of Ohio: is tied to the farm lobby. Yes, the farm lobby has been fighting for farmer’s rights for generations, which means in the current context a refusal to allow agricultural zoning to occur as it would deflect from potential windfalls if and when the farmer decides to get out of the milking cow business.

In all, the old slash and build model is entrenched in state legislatures and local municipalities, and it will stay there until a smart growth lobby emerges or the country collapses from its intrinsic weakness occurring from the predatory growth of its fringe.

Now, back to politics, or more specifically: the bind that heavily conservative pols such as those in Strongsville put themselves in by catering to the sprawl lobby at the expense of their constituent’s stated principles—you know, the economic manifest destiny that is the small business owner; the optics of traditional America like the small town feel; and that right to work for a respectable living wage.

It is a predicament for these communities no doubt. Re-enter the pretending then, if only to make the dissonance more palatable. More exactly, when arguing for a big tenant that will be bad for local business and the small town aesthetic the Strongsvilles of the world will often turn to the tenant’s marketing arm to sell the message: we can give you what you want if not what you need.  In the case of the proposed Market District it is the want for the “food experience”.  From the Giant Eagle website:

Each Market District^® location buzzes with a sense of excitement uniquely its own and no two stores are exactly alike. Whichever location you visit, you are sure to have an amazing food experience.  Enter our foodie destination and let all of our best food ideas and discoveries delight and inspire the food lover in you.

Echoing, Giant Eagle marketing manager Daniel Donovan told the Plain Dealer:

“The site is currently being considered for our first ground up Giant Eagle Market District in Northeast Ohio, a store concept geared toward food enthusiasts, offering a wide assortment of unique items in an environment where a passion for food can be nurtured.

The temptation of that old American food fetish.  The ease of telling oneself the big box conglomerate is just an old school block of small business. Illusion versus principle.

At least it is a tough call these days.  Said Strongmom, commenting about the upcoming rezoning vote that can in fact block the proposed Market District:

Oh, you guys had to go and make this hard, eh? I was leaning toward a no vote because I think the shopping should stay toward the center of town. But Market District? Really? I am familiar with the concept store in Pittsburgh. If it’s like that then it would be a huge asset to this community. But really… I do think the shopping should stay central in the city. decisions…. decisions….

In the end, perhaps the crux of this country’s problems is the pretending we still have choices when we really do not.

–Richey Piiparinen

Michigan State University in East Lansing has been a steady leader among public universities in the United States for sending its students abroad for a portion of their academic studies. On the flipside, the university along with seven other Big Ten universities has been the lucky recipients of a growing influx of international students, particularly undergraduates from China in the past five years. According to the Open Doors 2011 report from the Institute of International Education, of the 25 universities in the United States with the largest international student population, eight are from the Big Ten (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan. Michigan State, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue, and Wisconsin).

China has become the primary source of new international students since 2005, as the nation’s economy has boomed and its citizen’s wealth has grown. Part of the reason for this influx beyond increased wealth is due to the fact that only 18 percent of students are admitted to Chinese universities. The growth from China alone has been substantial enough to warrant Michigan State to open a satellite office in Beijing, China in 2008.

For Michigan State University, the rise in the international student population is fortuitous because it’s taking place at a time where the pool of potential Michigan resident students is starting to decline. As a result, the international students are filling a void and not squeezing out home state students. Below is a chart based on annual data from Michigan State’s Office for International Students and Scholars which shows the meteoric growth in the Chinese student population (undergraduate and graduate) at Michigan State. The greatest proportion of the growth in recent years has been in undergraduate students, rising from just 92 in 2006 to 2,217 in 2011.

Source: MSU Office for International Students & Scholars

In the communities around Michigan State’s campus, there has been a noticeable influx of new residents from China, many arriving with a great deal of disposable income. While the university requires all freshmen to live on campus, students are free to live where they choose after that first year. Based on cursory observations and reports from area property owners, the largest concentration of students from China appears to be occurring just to the northeast of campus along the Grand River Avenue (M-43) corridor. However, they are not alone, as a substantial number of relatively recent newcomers to the United States now reside in many parts of Greater Lansing from India and several other Asian nations.

Recognizing the growing and fairly concentrated Chinese student population, a number of commercial businesses along an approximate two-mile stretch of Grand River Avenue (M-43) now include Mandarin lettering in addition to English on their signs. Furthermore, some of the international students themselves are opening new businesses along this commercial corridor and in nearby areas. Automatic teller machines on campus and in the surrounding community now offer transactions in numerous languages (in some cases more than eight), including Mandarin. In an effort to reach out to the area’s growing Chinese community, Meridian Township, which borders the campus, recently appointed a Michigan State University student-local resident with family ties to China to a seat on the community’s Economic Development Corporation.

According to a report from the Association of International Educators, foreign students attending Michigan State University contributed nearly $185 million to the Greater Lansing economy in 2010, of which almost $90 million was spent on living expenses and dependents. Needless to say, spending like that gets noticed quickly.

Public school districts near Michigan State’s campus have also benefited from the growth in the international student population, as many of these students bring their spouses and/or children with them to the United States. Since Michigan’s funding formula for school districts is based on student head counts, any increase in class attendance is important to a school district’s bottom line.

This author can personally attest to the substantial benefits derived from a more diverse and inclusive community. It can be observed in new friendships, more cultural and religious offerings, dining  and recreational options, educational opportunities, travel options, architectural influences, and in the area’s enhanced entrepreneurial spirit. Freshman year at Michigan State, my son’s dormitory roommate was from South Korea. As a result, my son was afforded an amazing opportunity to befriend someone from the opposite side of the planet and learn more about his culture,while sharing the same about America.

Source: chicagochinatown.org

Will this student population boomlet from China continue into the foreseeable future? One would imagine so, barring any international disputes or incidents taking place that might sour relations. As a result, collegiate communities throughout the Rust Belt could and should be able to reap the cultural, societal, and economic benefits from Chinese and other international student population growth for some time to come. I cannot think of a better way to build friendships, improved understanding, and trust between the amazing array of societies and cultures on this planet.

– Rick Brown

The segment made its focal point a failed developed called Cinema Park. This neighborhood, like so many across the United States, got started with high hopes right before the recession began. And now, it is eerie, half empty, a startling reminder of how much has changed in this country over such a short time.

Cinema Park is a particularly sad case because the development, on the city’s east side, was home to mainly upwardly mobile black families. And as the video from 60 Minutes makes clear, many of their fortunes have suffered as well.

A very good Rust Wire friend recently visited this development, snapped a few pictures and made some observations. We are reprinting them here, with some words from the photographer, courtesy of the blog Bridget Callahan is Your Best Friend and its namesake.

The land used to be a drive in theater, thus the name. There were a dozen houses, and people living in six of them, and the rest all empty plots. It was very gray and cold, and the sky looked like a down comforter spinning in an industrial dryer. One woman called out to us from her bedroom window, in a pink bathrobe. I could only catch half of what she was saying, but it made me feel weird, being there only to take photos of how tragic her street looked like. She was fine with it, presumably having dealt with reporters already for a while. Just don’t break into any of them, she said. No problem. We understood each other, that this was just a reality of living in this city. They were boarded up tight anyways, Playmobil houses that just weren’t ready to be shipped yet. The sidewalks started and ended in odd places, and there were several missing driveways. At the end of the street was a very nice large park with lots of benches, more benches than there were actual people living there. It was a park with expectations.

Everyone is waiting for someone — just anyone — with a good idea that will change the whole dynamic there. Often the trial solutions tend toward almost utopian — urban gardens, artist settlements, etc.

I have been slowly coming of the opinion that this is wrong on a few levels. Hear me out.

For one, I find it a little insulting/patronizing. Detroit, home to 700,000 people is a “laboratory”? That sort of implies that the stakes are somehow low. That there is room for a fair amount of failure.

In fact, Detroit is a desperate city, full of desperate people. And its resources are scarce. Here more than anywhere, it’s proven strategies that should be employed.

Here is the thing. The field of urban studies/urban planning is relatively new compared to fields like medicine or even psychology. But it is becoming increasingly sophisticated. We as a society have made investments in skilled researchers who are constantly arriving at new conclusions — conclusions that justify certain courses of action and condemn others. These experiments are designed to take the guesswork out of city planning and development, to save communities from making costly errors.

Urban planning and development, as I see it, is a lot more sophisticated a field than beautification. Transportation planning, development planning, taxation, the flow of capital — it’s complicated stuff, infused with lessons from architecture, engineering, real estate development and other fields. Those with the most experience in these realms are those who are best equipped to solve the problems of Detroit or Cleveland — not just your average joe off the street, it is my belief.

It seems to me, redevelopment efforts in Cleveland and Detroit are often tinged with just a touch too much Disney. The solutions so often seem so whimsical, so simple. Plant gardens on empty lots. Draw artists to empty homes. Plan a slick marketing campaign.

The actual business of urban planning I observe in cities that are having a lot of success right now is, by contrast, very technical. It took decades for Portland to plan its streetcar system. And it took almost another decade for the city to develop guidelines for transit oriented development, establishing the proper tax incentives, the right guidelines for residential development and parking, that would satisfy the city’s need for investment, while maintaining its commitment to sustainability and respecting the public’s investment. It was complicated. And it is a science. Not a hard science, but a science none the less.

My day job allows me access to some of the world’s top planning professionals. And I had the opportunity last year to speak with one such professional about Detroit. One thing he said to me is that there is really a need for a new lending dynamic, a new way to finance housing investment, because the old 30-year mortgage model no longer works there — and that is self-evident. A new model for funding housing investment by individuals, something that respects the special dynamics of a weak market city like Detroit. That is the kind of innovation needed, I feel like, but it’s not s flashy as public art. We need a finance nerd to innovate that financial industry custom.

Perhaps, on blogs like this one, we are too focused on urban design innovation and not focused enough on policy. Detroit and Cleveland don’t need experimentation, I don’t think, as much as they need to implement proven strategies that more successful cities have adopted — Portland’s land use planning, Minneapolis’ commitment to transit and density, New York’s innovation in livable streets.

Now people will respond: You can’t compare Cleveland and Detroit to Portland and New York. And on some level they are right. Of course, something that worked in New York couldn’t be copied and pasted — the biggest reason is because of differences in the housing market. But I see no reason why the same campaigns couldn’t work — with some skilled adaptation.

Last week, a friend suggested something that I thought was a really good idea for Rust Belt cities for the first time in a long time. He suggested Cincinnati land bank its publicly owned parking lots for development. Wonky right? You probably aren’t going to form a neighborhood coalition around that. But that is the type of innovation that I think is needed — things that will return development and old-fashioned vibrancy to the central city, with a helping hand from the government. Planning is about guiding the hand of development. And Rust Belt cities are failing at it, although to be fair, it is more challenging here.

I think in a lot of ways, Detroit’s failures, Cleveland’s failures, they are the result of bad planning (or no planning) and unsophisticated government leadership. Cleveland’s multiple botched lakefront development attempts are a classic example.

I think these cities, they need not necessarily be in a class of themselves, or not quite as much as they have been. Rust Belt cities don’t need totally new solutions. They just need the same solutions — with modification — and they need to break down the political obstacles to change.

I know I am outside the mainstream in my thinking on this. But I think that the only solution to Detroit and Cleveland’s problems must be political. Cleveland cannot pull itself up by its bootstraps. Only through a concerted regional effort can the central city be saved from continuing decline — and only if that happens can the region, including its suburbs, be saved.

But it doesn’t need to, and isn’t equipped to, reinvent the wheel. The solutions are right there for the taking. The real struggle is convincing these cities to confront that and move forward, I think.

-A.S.