Method Appendix

8/14/2019 Method Appendix

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/method-appendix 1/117

METHODOLOGYAPPENDIX TABLES

AN ANALYSISOF

RESIDENTIALMARKETPOTENTIAL

City of South EuclidCuyahoga County, Ohio

November, 2008

Conducted by On behalf of theZ IMMERMAN /V OLK A SSOCIATES , I NC . City of South Euclid

P.O. Box 4907 Cuyahoga County, OhioClinton, New Jersey 08809



ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC .P.O. Box 4907Clinton, New Jersey 08809

908 735-6336 www.ZVA.cc • [email protected]

Research & Strategic Analysis

METHODOLOGY :

A N A NALYSIS

OF

R ESIDENTIAL M ARKET POTENTIAL

THE CITY OF SOUTH EUCLIDCUYAHOGA COUNTY , O HIO

NOVEMBER , 2008

The technical analysis of South Euclid’s market potential included delineation of the draw

areas, determination of the city’s target markets, and establishment of the city’s optimum

market position, as well as specific analysis of the Cedar Center redevelopment and a potential

redevelopment of land adjacent to the South Euclid-Lyndhurst Public Library.

The delineation of the draw areas for new and existing housing units within the City of South

Euclid was based on historic settlement patterns, migration trends for Cuyahoga County, and

other market dynamics.

The evaluation of market potential for the City of South Euclid was derived from target

market analysis of households in the draw areas, and yielded:

• The depth and breadth of the potential housing market by tenure (rental and

ownership) and by type (apartments, attached and detached houses); and

• The composition of the potential housing market (empty-nesters/retirees,

traditional and non-traditional families, younger singles/couples).



METHODOLOGY : A N A NALYSIS OFR ESIDENTIAL M ARKET POTENTIAL Page 2The City of South Euclid, Cuyahoga County, OhioNovember, 2008

ZIMMERMAN/VOLK ASSOCIATES, INC.

DELINEATION OF THE DRAW AREAS (MIGRATION A NALYSIS)—

Taxpayer migration data provide the framework for the delineation of the draw areas—the

principal counties of origin for households that are likely to move to the City of South Euclid.

These data are maintained at the county and “county equivalent” level by the Internal Revenue

Service and provide a clear representation of mobility patterns.

Appendix One, Table 1.Migration Trends

Between 2002 and 2006 (the most recent year for which migration data are available), the

number of households moving into Cuyahoga County ranged between the high of 17,740

households in 2002 and the low of 17,150 households in 2004. Over 36 percent of thecounty’s in-migration is from the five counties; that surround Cuyahoga; Lorain, Summit,

Lake and Medina Counties together accounted for more than 31 percent of in-migrating

households in 2006.

Over the same period, Cuyahoga County continued to sustain net migration losses,i.e .—the

county lost more households through out-migration than it gained through in-migration.

Net losses rose from 5,775 households in 2002 to 7,750 households in 2005, but fell to 6,225

households in 2006.

NOTE : Although net migration provides insights into a county’s historic ability to attract or retainhouseholds compared to other locations, it is those households likely to move into a county (grossin-migration) that represent that county’s external market potential.

Based on the migration data, then, the draw areas for the City of South Euclid have been

delineated as follows:

• The primary (or internal) draw area, covering households currently living within the

South Euclid city limits.

• The local draw area, covering households currently living in the surrounding

municipalities of Cleveland Heights, University Heights, Lyndhurst, and Richmond

Heights.





• The county draw area, covering households currently living in the balance of Cuyahoga

County.

• The regional draw area, covering households with the potential to move to the City of

South Euclid from three adjacent Ohio counties: Lorain, Summit, Lake and Medina.

• The national draw area, covering households with the potential to move to the City of

South Euclid from all other U.S. counties.

Anecdotal information obtained from developers, real estate brokers, leasing agents, and other

knowledgeable sources corresponded to the migration data.

Migration Methodology :

County-to-county migration is based on the year-to-year changes in the addresses shown on

the population of returns from the Internal Revenue Service Individual Master File system.

Data on migration patterns by county, or county equivalent, for the entire United States,

include inflows and outflows. The data include the number of returns (which can be used to

approximate the number of households), and the median and average incomes reported on the

returns.





TARGET MARKET CLASSIFICATION OF CITY AND COUNTY HOUSEHOLDS —

Household cluster data obtained from Claritas, Inc. provide the framework for the

categorization of households, not only by demographic characteristics, but also by lifestyle

preferences and socio-economic factors. An appendix containing detailed descriptions of each

of these target market groups is provided along with the study.

Appendix One, Tables 2 and 3.Target Market Classifications

Approximately 97 percent, or 8,765 households, of the estimated 8,500 households living in

the City of South Euclid in 2008 have the capacity to rent or buy market-rate housing.

Median income within the city is estimated at $53,400, over six percent higher than thenational median of $50,200. Median home value within the city is estimated at $132,100,

approximately 26 percent lower than the national median of $178,600. Over 51 percent of

South Euclid’s “market-rate” households are classified as traditional and non-traditional

families, another 41.6 percent are empty nesters and retirees, and just 6.9 percent are younger

singles and couples. (See Appendix One, Table 2.)

Of the estimated 536,020 households living in Cuyahoga County in 2008, just over 71

percent, or 381,575 households, have the capacity to rent or buy market-rate housing. Medianincome within the county is estimated at $43,700, nearly $10,000 lower than South Euclid’s

median. Median home value within Cuyahoga County is estimated at $136,700,

approximately 3.5 percent higher than South Euclid’s median. Just under 43 percent of the

county’s “market-rate” households can be classified as empty nesters and retirees,

approximately 31.7 percent are traditional and non-traditional families, and 25.8 percent are

younger singles and couples. (See Appendix One, Table 3.)

Target Market Methodology :

The proprietary target market methodology developed by Zimmerman/Volk Associates is an

analytical technique, using thePRIZM NE household clustering system, that establishes the

optimum market position for residential development of any property—from a specific site to

an entire political jurisdiction—through cluster analysis of households living within designated





draw areas. In contrast to classical supply/demand analysis—which is based on supply-side

dynamics and baseline demographic projections—target market analysis establishes the

optimum market position derived from the housing and lifestyle preferences of households inthe draw area and within the framework of the local housing market context, even in locations

where no close comparables exist.

In the target market methodology, clusters of households (usually between 10 and 15) are

grouped according to a variety of significant factors, ranging from basic demographic

characteristics, such as income qualification and age, to less-frequently considered attributes

such as mobility rates, lifestyle patterns and compatibility issues. Zimmerman/Volk

Associates has refined the analysis of these household clusters through the correlation of morethan 500 data points related to housing preferences and consumer and lifestyle characteristics.

As a result of this process, Zimmerman/Volk Associates has identified 41 target market

groups with median incomes that enable most of the households within each group to qualify

for market-rate housing. The most affluent of the 41 groups can afford the most expensive

new ownership units; the least prosperous are candidates for the least expensive existing rental

apartments.

Once the draw areas for a property have been defined, then—through field investigation,

analysis of historic migration and development trends, and employment and commutation

patterns—the households within those areas are quantified using the target market

methodology. The potential market for new market-rate units is then determined by the

correlation of a number of factors—including, but not limited to: household mobility rates;

median incomes; lifestyle characteristics and housing preferences; the location of the site; and

the competitive environment.

The end result of this series of filters is the optimum market position—by tenure, building

configuration and household type, including specific recommendations for unit sizes, rents

and/or prices—and projections of absorption within the local housing context.





DETERMINATION OF MARKET POTENTIAL FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH EUCLID (MOBILITY A NALYSIS)—

The mobility tables, individually and in summaries, indicate the number and type of households that have the potential to move within or to the City of South Euclid in the year

2008. The total number from each county is derived from historic migration trends; the

number of households from each group is based on each group’s mobility rate.

Appendix One, Table 4.Internal Mobility (Households Moving Within the City of South Euclid)—

Zimmerman/Volk Associates uses U.S. Bureau of the Census data, combined with Claritas

data, to determine the number of households in each target market group that will move fromone residence to another within a specific jurisdiction in a given year (internal mobility).

Using these data, Zimmerman/Volk Associates has determined that up to 1,000 households

living in the City of South Euclid have the potential to move from one residence to another

within the city in 2008.

Appendix One, Table 5 and Appendix Two, Tables 1 through 4.External Mobility (Households Moving To the City of South Euclid from Surrounding

Municipalities)—The same sources of data are used to determine the number of households in each target

market group that will move from one area to another within the same county . Using these

data, approximately 250 households living in Cleveland Heights, University Heights,

Lyndhurst, and Richmond Heights have the potential to move from a residence in one of

those four municipalities to a residence in South Euclid in 2008.

Appendix One, Table 6.External Mobility (Households Moving To the City of South Euclid from the Balance of theCounty)—

Again, the same sources of data are used to determine the number of households in each

target market group that will move from one area to another within the samecounty . Using

these data, approximately 1,000 households living in the balance of Cuyahoga County

(excluding Cleveland Heights, University Heights, Lyndhurst, and Richmond Heights) have





the potential to move from a residence in one the county to a residence in South Euclid in

2008.

Appendix One, Tables 7 and 8; and Appendix Two, Tables 5 through 8.External Mobility (Households Moving To the City of South Euclid from Outside CuyahogaCounty)—

These tables determine the number of households in each target market group living in each

draw area county and the balance of the United States that are likely to move to the City of

South Euclid in 2008 (through a correlation of Claritas data, U.S. Bureau of the Census data,

and the Internal Revenue Service migration data).

Appendix One, Table 9.Market Potential for the City of Rochester—

This table summarizes Appendix One, Tables 4 through 8. The numbers in the Total column

on page one of this table indicate the depth and breadth of the potential market for new and

existing dwelling units in the City of South Euclid in the year 2008 originating from

households currently living in the draw areas. Up to 3,200 households have the potential to

move within or to the City of South Euclid this year.

The distribution of the draw areas as a percentage of the potential market for the City of South Euclid is as follows::

Potential Housing Market by Draw AreaCity of South Euclid, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

City of South Euclid (Primary Draw Area): 31%Cleveland Heights/University Heights/Lyndhurst/Richmond Heights

(Local Draw Area): 8%Balance of Cuyahoga County (County Draw Area): 31%

Lorain/Summit/Lake/Medina Counties(Regional Draw Area): 13%

Balance of US (National Draw Area): 17%

Total: 100%SOURCE: Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc., 2008.

Of the 3,200 households that represent the annual potential market for new and existing

housing units in the City of South Euclid, nearly 47 percent can be classified as younger





singles and couples (as characterized within 14 of Zimmerman/Volk Associates’ target market

groups), approximately 37.5 percent are traditional and non-traditional families (in 12

groups), and 15.9 percent are empty nesters and retirees (in 13 groups). (See Appendix One,Table 9.)

Appendix One, Tables 10 and 11; Table 1.THE POTENTIAL MARKET FOR N EW AND EXISTING H OUSING UNITS IN THE C ITY OFSOUTH EUCLID—

The 3,200 draw area households that have the potential to move within or to the City of

South Euclid this year have been categorized by tenure propensities to determine renter/owner

ratios. Approximately 28.1 percent of these households (or 900 households) comprise the

potential market for market-rate rentals. The remaining 71.9 percent (or 2,300 households)

comprise the market for market-rate for-sale (ownership) housing units. (Reference Appendix

One, Table 10.)

Of the 2,300 households that comprise the market for market-rate for-sale housing units, 30.9

percent (or 710 households) comprise the market for multi-family for-sale units

(condominium/cooperative lofts/apartments); another 26.5 percent (610 households)

comprise the market for attached single-family (townhouse) units; and the remaining 42.6

percent (980 households) comprise the market for all ranges of single-family detached houses.

(Reference Appendix One, Table 11.)





D ETERMINATION O F T HE POTENTIAL M ARKET F OR THE C EDAR CENTERREDEVELOPMENT AREA—

The total potential market for the new housing units to be developed within Cedar Centerincludes the same draw areas. Zimmerman/Volk Associates uses U.S. Bureau of the Census

data, combined with Claritas data, to determine which target market groups, as well as how

many households within each group, are likely to move to the Cedar Center redevelopment

area in a given year.

Appendix One, Tables 12 through 14.MARKET POTENTIAL FOR THE CEDAR CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AREA—

As derived by the target market methodology, up to 760 of the 3,200 households thatrepresent the market for new and existing housing units in the City of South Euclid are a

market for new housing units within the Cedar Center redevelopment area. Nearly 53 percent

of these households are likely to be younger singles and couples (as characterized within six

Zimmerman/Volk Associates’ target market groups); up to 28.9 percent are likely to be

empty nesters and retirees (in four groups); and the remaining 18.4 percent are likely to be

traditional and non-traditional families (in one group).

The distribution of the draw areas as a percentage of the potential market for the CedarCenter redevelopment area is as follows:

Market Potential by Draw AreaCEDAR CENTER

City of South Euclid, Cuyahoga County, OhioCity of South Euclid (Primary Draw Area): 33%

Cleveland Heights/University Heights/Lyndhurst/Richmond Heights(Local Draw Area): 17%

Balance of Cuyahoga County (County Draw Area): 26%Lorain/Summit/Lake/Medina Counties

(Regional Draw Area): 5%Balance of US (National Draw Area): 18%






The 760 draw area households that have the potential to move within or to Cedar Center this

year have been categorized by tenure propensities to determine renter/owner ratios. (See

Appendix One, Tables 13 and 14.)

Approximately 31.6 percent of these households (or 240 households) comprise the potential

market for rental units at the rent levels required to support newly-constructed market-rate

housing. The remaining 68.4 percent (or 520 households) comprise the market for new

market-rate for-sale (ownership) housing units.. (See Appendix One, Table 13.)

Of the 520 households that comprise the market for new market-rate for-sale housing units,

up to 34.6 percent (190 households) comprise the market for multi-family ownership

(condominium or cooperative) units; another 26.9 percent (140 households) comprise the

market for all ranges of attached single-family (townhouse) units; and the remaining 38.5

percent (200 households) comprise the market for all ranges of single-family detached houses.

(See Appendix One, Table 14.)

DETERMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL MARKET FOR THE LIBRARYSITE—

The total potential market for the new housing units to be developed within the Library siteincludes the same draw areas. Zimmerman/Volk Associates uses U.S. Bureau of the Census

data, combined with Claritas data, to determine which target market groups, as well as how

many households within each group, are likely to move to the Cedar Center redevelopment

area in a given year.

Appendix One, Tables 15 through 17.MARKET POTENTIAL FOR THE LIBRARYSITE—

As derived by the target market methodology, up to 850 of the 3,200 households thatrepresent the market for new and existing housing units in the City of South Euclid are a

market for new housing units within the Library site. Just over 28 percent of these households

are likely to be younger singles and couples (as characterized within four Zimmerman/Volk

Associates’ target market groups); up to 34.1 percent are likely to be empty nesters and





retirees (in seven groups); and the remaining 37.6 percent are likely to be traditional and non-

traditional families (in four groups).

The distribution of the draw areas as a percentage of the potential market for the Library site

is as follows:

Market Potential by Draw AreaTHE LIBRARY SITE

City of South Euclid, Cuyahoga County, OhioCity of South Euclid (Primary Draw Area): 41%

Cleveland Heights/University Heights/Lyndhurst/Richmond Heights(Local Draw Area): 9%

Balance of Cuyahoga County (County Draw Area): 27%Lorain/Summit/Lake/Medina Counties

(Regional Draw Area): 5%Balance of US (National Draw Area): 18%


The 850 draw area households that have the potential to move within or to the Library site this

year have been categorized by tenure propensities to determine renter/owner ratios. (See

Appendix One, Tables 16 and 17.)

Approximately 21.2 percent of these households (or 180 households) comprise the potentialmarket for rental units at the rent levels required to support newly-constructed market-rate

housing. The remaining 78.8 percent (or 670 households) comprise the market for new

market-rate for-sale (ownership) housing units.. (See Appendix One, Table 16.)

Of the 670 households that comprise the market for new market-rate for-sale housing units,

up to 22.4 percent (150 households) comprise the market for multi-family ownership

(condominium or cooperative) units; another 28.4 percent (190 households) comprise the

market for all ranges of attached single-family (townhouse) units; and the remaining 49.3percent (330 households) comprise the market for all ranges of single-family detached houses.

(See Appendix One, Table 17.)





—Target Market Data—

Target market data are based on the Claritas PRIZM NE household clustering system,

modified and augmented by Zimmerman/Volk Associates as the basis for its proprietary

target market methodology. Target market data provides number of households by cluster

aggregated into the three main demographic categories—empty nesters and retirees;

traditional and non-traditional families; and younger singles and couples.

Zimmerman/Volk Associates’ target market classifications are updated periodically to reflect

the slow, but relentless change in the composition of American households. Because of the

nature of geo-demographic segmentation, a change in household classification is directly

correlated with a change in geography,i.e .—a move from one neighborhood condition to

another. However, these changes of classification can also reflect an alteration in one of three

additional basic characteristics:

• Age;

• Household composition; or

• Economic status.

Age, of course, is the most predictable, and easily-defined of these changes. Household

composition has also been relatively easy to define; recently, with the growth of non-

traditional households, however, definitions of a family have had to be expanded and parsed

into more highly-refined segments. Economic status remains clearly defined through

measures of annual income and household wealth.

A change in classification is rarely induced by a change in just one of the four basic

characteristics. This is one reason that the target household categories are so highly refined:

they take in multiple characteristics. Even so, there are some rough equivalents in household

types as they move from one neighborhood condition to another. There is, for example, astrong correlation between theSuburban Achievers and the Urban Achievers ; a move by the

Suburban Achievers to the urban core can make them Urban Achievers , if the move is

accompanied by an upward move in socio-economic status. In contrast,Suburban Achievers





who move up socio-economically, but remain within the metropolitan suburbs may become

Upscale Suburban Couples or Fast-Track Professionals .

Household Classification Methodology :

Household classifications were originally based on the ClaritasPRIZM geo-demographic

segmentation system that was established in 1974 and then replaced by PRIZM NE in 2005.

The revised household classifications are based onPRIZM NE which was developed through

unique classification and regression trees delineating 66 specific clusters of American

households. The system is now accurate to the individual household level, adding self-

reported and list-based household data to geo-demographic information. The process applies

hundreds of demographic variables to nearly 10,000 “behaviors.”

Over the past 19 years, Zimmerman/Volk Associates has augmented thePRIZM cluster

systems for use within the company’s proprietary target market methodology specific to

housing and neighborhood preferences, with additional algorithms, correlation with geo-

coded consumer data, aggregation of clusters by broad household definition, and unique

cluster names.

o



METHODOLOGY : A N A NALYSIS OF R ESIDENTIAL M ARKET POTENTIALThe City of South Euclid, Cuyahoga County, OhioNovember, 2008

Appendix One Tables

o



Appendix One, Table 1 Page 1 of 3

Gross Annual Household In-MigrationCuyahoga County, Ohio

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

. . . . . 2002 . . . . . . . . . . 2003 . . . . . . . . . . 2004 . . . . . . . . . . 2005 . . . . . . . . . . 2006 . . . . .

County of Origin Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share

Lorain 1,415 8.0% 1,515 8.8% 1,535 9.0% 1,610 9.2% 1,595 9.1%Summit 1,480 8.3% 1,485 8.6% 1,425 8.3% 1,550 8.8% 1,470 8.4%

Lake 1,490 8.4% 1,460 8.4% 1,490 8.7% 1,445 8.3% 1,420 8.1%Medina 1,055 5.9% 1,030 6.0% 1,055 6.2% 1,090 6.2% 1,020 5.8%

APO/FPO/Foreign 770 4.3% 755 4.4% 680 4.0% 680 3.9% 650 3.7%Franklin 505 2.8% 535 3.1% 580 3.4% 575 3.3% 550 3.1%Portage 495 2.8% 535 3.1% 540 3.1% 520 3.0% 505 2.9%Geauga 500 2.8% 480 2.8% 485 2.8% 475 2.7% 410 2.3%

Cook, IL 300 1.7% 280 1.6% 265 1.5% 265 1.5% 250 1.4%Allegheny, PA 195 1.1% 190 1.1% 220 1.3% 175 1.0% 205 1.2%

Lucas 240 1.4% 220 1.3% 185 1.1% 190 1.1% 200 1.1%Stark 215 1.2% 210 1.2% 215 1.3% 230 1.3% 190 1.1%

Mahoning 180 1.0% 170 1.0% 185 1.1% 155 0.9% 185 1.1%Trumbull 150 0.8% 170 1.0% 165 1.0% 170 1.0% 175 1.0%Hamilton 195 1.1% 140 0.8% 175 1.0% 155 0.9% 175 1.0%

Ashtabula 165 0.9% 175 1.0% 125 0.7% 160 0.9% 160 0.9%Los Angeles, CA 150 0.8% 150 0.9% 140 0.8% 130 0.7% 140 0.8%

Middlesex, NJ 30 0.2% 15 0.1% 20 0.1% 25 0.1% 125 0.7%Maricopa, AZ 95 0.5% 100 0.6% 95 0.6% 110 0.6% 120 0.7%

Erie 110 0.6% 130 0.8% 125 0.7% 90 0.5% 115 0.7%Oakland, MI 100 0.6% 105 0.6% 105 0.6% 160 0.9% 105 0.6%

Wayne, MI 90 0.5% 100 0.6% 95 0.6% 115 0.7% 100 0.6%New York, NY 110 0.6% 90 0.5% 95 0.6% 75 0.4% 90 0.5%Wood 85 0.5% 70 0.4% 75 0.4% 65 0.4% 90 0.5%

Wayne 80 0.5% 75 0.4% 80 0.5% 80 0.5% 85 0.5%San Diego, CA 90 0.5% 105 0.6% 85 0.5% 90 0.5% 85 0.5%

Montgomery 105 0.6% 85 0.5% 95 0.6% 90 0.5% 80 0.5%Broward, FL 70 0.4% 55 0.3% 80 0.5% 65 0.4% 80 0.5%

Clark, NV 85 0.5% 60 0.3% 80 0.5% 65 0.4% 80 0.5%Hillsborough, FL 50 0.3% 40 0.2% 35 0.2% 40 0.2% 75 0.4%

Orange, FL 55 0.3% 40 0.2% 40 0.2% 55 0.3% 70 0.4%Harris, TX 65 0.4% 45 0.3% 55 0.3% 65 0.4% 70 0.4%

Washtenaw, MI 55 0.3% 55 0.3% 65 0.4% 55 0.3% 70 0.4%

Erie, NY 80 0.5% 80 0.5% 80 0.5% 60 0.3% 65 0.4%Erie, PA 70 0.4% 55 0.3% 85 0.5% 85 0.5% 65 0.4%

All Other Counties 6,815 38.4% 6,500 37.6% 6,295 36.7% 6,550 37.4% 6,665 38.0%

Total In-Migration: 17,740 100.0% 17,305 100.0% 17,150 100.0% 17,515 100.0% 17,535 100.0%

NOTE: All numbers have been rounded to the nearest five.

SOURCE: Internal Revenue Service;Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.




Gross Annual Household Out-MigrationCuyahoga County, Ohio

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

. . . . . 2002 . . . . . . . . . . 2003 . . . . . . . . . . 2004 . . . . . . . . . . 2005 . . . . . . . . . . 2006 . . . . .

Destination County Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share Number Share

Lorain 2,590 11.0% 2,750 11.7% 2,785 11.4% 2,650 10.5% 2,430 10.Summit 2,115 9.0% 2,200 9.4% 2,330 9.5% 2,385 9.4% 2,165 9.1

Lake 1,985 8.4% 2,025 8.6% 2,075 8.5% 2,085 8.3% 2,065 8.7Medina 1,885 8.0% 1,840 7.8% 1,895 7.7% 1,830 7.2% 1,620 6.8

APO/FPO/Foreign 350 1.5% 340 1.5% 330 1.3% 280 1.1% 290 1.2%Franklin 750 3.2% 740 3.2% 735 3.0% 830 3.3% 790 3.3Portage 780 3.3% 740 3.2% 705 2.9% 785 3.1% 775 3.3Geauga 765 3.3% 670 2.9% 670 2.7% 680 2.7% 600 2.5

Cook, IL 350 1.5% 410 1.7% 400 1.6% 490 1.9% 510 2.1Allegheny, PA 190 0.8% 180 0.8% 175 0.7% 215 0.9% 180 0.8

Lucas 195 0.8% 175 0.7% 170 0.7% 175 0.7% 165 0.7Stark 170 0.7% 185 0.8% 175 0.7% 185 0.7% 185 0.8

Mahoning 120 0.5% 140 0.6% 130 0.5% 115 0.5% 95 0.4%Trumbull 145 0.6% 105 0.4% 120 0.5% 115 0.5% 105 0.4Hamilton 155 0.7% 195 0.8% 210 0.9% 220 0.9% 190 0.8

Ashtabula 225 1.0% 165 0.7% 170 0.7% 150 0.6% 150 0.6Los Angeles, CA 195 0.8% 210 0.9% 245 1.0% 205 0.8% 200 0.8

Middlesex, NJ 25 0.1% 25 0.1% 35 0.1% 35 0.1% 35 0.1%Maricopa, AZ 215 0.9% 235 1.0% 290 1.2% 355 1.4% 355 1.5

Erie 120 0.5% 120 0.5% 100 0.4% 120 0.5% 100 0.4Oakland, MI 130 0.6% 130 0.6% 110 0.4% 85 0.3% 75 0.3%

Wayne, MI 140 0.6% 130 0.6% 105 0.4% 80 0.3% 75 0.3New York, NY 155 0.7% 155 0.7% 170 0.7% 190 0.8% 165 0.7Wood 50 0.2% 55 0.2% 70 0.3% 70 0.3% 55 0.2%

Wayne 85 0.4% 70 0.3% 100 0.4% 85 0.3% 80 0.3San Diego, CA 150 0.6% 125 0.5% 130 0.5% 145 0.6% 140 0.6

Montgomery 100 0.4% 80 0.3% 95 0.4% 85 0.3% 90 0.4%Broward, FL 110 0.5% 105 0.4% 175 0.7% 150 0.6% 110 0.5

Clark, NV 180 0.8% 160 0.7% 245 1.0% 270 1.1% 230 1.0Hillsborough, FL 115 0.5% 120 0.5% 180 0.7% 160 0.6% 110 0.5

Orange, FL 100 0.4% 95 0.4% 115 0.5% 100 0.4% 85 0.4Harris, TX 95 0.4% 110 0.5% 110 0.4% 115 0.5% 155 0.7

Washtenaw, MI 45 0.2% 80 0.3% 75 0.3% 45 0.2% 45 0.2%

Erie, NY 65 0.3% 50 0.2% 45 0.2% 50 0.2% 60 0.3Erie, PA 55 0.2% 65 0.3% 45 0.2% 45 0.2% 45 0.2

All Other Counties 8,615 36.6% 8,460 36.1% 8,955 36.6% 9,690 38.3% 9,235 38.9

Total Out-Migration: 23,515 100.0% 23,440 100.0% 24,470 100.0% 25,270 100.0% 23,760 100.0%






Net Annual Household MigrationCuyahoga County, Ohio

2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006

. . . . . 2002 . . . . . . . . . . 2003 . . . . . . . . . . 2004 . . . . . . . . . . 2005 . . . . . . . . . . 2006 . . . . .

County Number Number Number Number Number

Lorain -1,175 -1,235 -1,250 -1,040 -835Summit -635 -715 -905 -835 -695

Lake -495 -565 -585 -640 -645Medina -830 -810 -840 -740 -600

APO/FPO/Foreign 420 415 350 400 360Franklin -245 -205 -155 -255 -240Portage -285 -205 -165 -265 -270Geauga -265 -190 -185 -205 -190

Cook, IL -50 -130 -135 -225 -260Allegheny, PA 5 10 45 -40 25

Lucas 45 45 15 15 35Stark 45 25 40 45 5

Mahoning 60 30 55 40 90Trumbull 5 65 45 55 70Hamilton 40 -55 -35 -65 -15

Ashtabula -60 10 -45 10 10Los Angeles, CA -45 -60 -105 -75 -60

Middlesex, NJ 5 -10 -15 -10 90Maricopa, AZ -120 -135 -195 -245 -235

Erie -10 10 25 -30 15Oakland, MI -30 -25 -5 75 30

Wayne, MI -50 -30 -10 35 25New York, NY -45 -65 -75 -115 -75Wood 35 15 5 -5 35

Wayne -5 5 -20 -5 5San Diego, CA -60 -20 -45 -55 -55

Montgomery 5 5 0 5 -10Broward, FL -40 -50 -95 -85 -30

Clark, NV -95 -100 -165 -205 -150Hillsborough, FL -65 -80 -145 -120 -35

Orange, FL -45 -55 -75 -45 -15Harris, TX -30 -65 -55 -50 -85

Washtenaw, MI 10 -25 -10 10 25

Erie, NY 15 30 35 10 5Erie, PA 15 -10 40 40 20

All Other Counties -1,800 -1,960 -2,660 -3,140 -2,570

Total Net Migration: -5,775 -6,135 -7,320 -7,755 -6,225






2008 Household Classification by Market GroupsCity of South Euclid, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Household Type/ Estimated EstimatedGeographic Designation Number Share

Empty Nesters& Retirees 3,535 41.6%

Metropolitan Cities 2,755 32.4%Small Cities/Satellite Cities 0 0.0%

Metropolitan Suburbs 780 9.2%Town & Country/Exurbs 0 0.0%

Traditional &Non-Traditional Families 4,375 51.5%

Metropolitan Cities 3,935 46.3%Small Cities/Satellite Cities 0 0.0%


YoungerSingles & Couples 590 6.9%

Metropolitan Cities 320 3.8%

Small Cities/Satellite Cities 0 0.0% Metropolitan Suburbs 270 3.2%Town & Country/Exurbs 0 0.0%

Total: 8,500 100.0%

Total City Households: 8,765

Classified Households As A ShareOf Total City Households: 97.0%

Estimated Median Income: $53,400Estimated National Median Income: $50,200

Estimated Median Home Value: $132,100Estimated National Median Home Value: $178,600

SOURCE: Claritas, Inc.;Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc.





Estimated EstimatedNumber Share

Estimated EstimatedEmpty Nesters Median Median& Retirees 3,535 41.6% Income Home Value

Metropolitan CitiesUrban Establishment 475 5.6% $125,500 $276,000

Cosmopolitan Couples 1,425 16.8% $80,400 $165,700Multi-Ethnic Retirees 855 10.1% $58,100 $105,300

Subtotal: 2,755 32.4%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesCosmopolitan Elite 0 0.0%

Middle-Class Move-Downs 0 0.0%Subtotal: 0 0.0%

Metropolitan SuburbsOld Money 0 0.0%

Affluent Empty Nesters 180 2.1% $102,300 $206,200Suburban Establishment 280 3.3% $99,400 $170,800

Mainstream Retirees 180 2.1% $75,000 $114,000Middle-American Retirees 140 1.6% $70,500 $105,800

Subtotal: 780 9.2%

Town & Country/ExurbsSmall-Town Establishment 0 0.0%

New Empty Nesters 0 0.0%RV Retirees 0 0.0%

Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 0 0.0%Subtotal: 0 0.0%







Estimated EstimatedTraditional & Median MedianNon-Traditional Families 4,375 51.5% Income Home Value

Metropolitan CitiesFull-Nest Urbanites 3,590 42.2% $93,100 $199,200

Multi-Cultural Families 345 4.1% $50,600 $101,200Subtotal: 3,935 46.3%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesUnibox Transferees 0 0.0%

Multi-Ethnic Families 0 0.0%Subtotal: 0 0.0%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 10 0.1% $170,700 $310,200

Nouveau Money 0 0.0%Late-Nest Suburbanites 220 2.6% $106,400 $170,300Full-Nest Suburbanites 120 1.4% $102,900 $161,200

Blue-Collar Button-Downs 90 1.1% $72,300 $123,500Subtotal: 440 5.2%

Town & Country/Exurbs

Ex-Urban Elite 0 0.0%Full-Nest Exurbanites 0 0.0%New-Town Families 0 0.0%

Small-Town Families 0 0.0%Subtotal: 0 0.0%







Estimated EstimatedYounger Median MedianSingle & Couples 590 6.9% Income Home Value

Metropolitan Citiese-Types 125 1.5% $119,900 $289,200

New Bohemians 110 1.3% $91,700 $222,700Urban Achievers 85 1.0% $65,300 $157,500

Subtotal: 320 3.8%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesThe VIPs 0 0.0%

Twentysomethings 0 0.0%Small-City Singles 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 0 0.0%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Entrepreneurs 0 0.0%

Fast-Track Professionals 50 0.6% $105,600 $191,300Upscale Suburban Couples 15 0.2% $96,600 $186,500

No-Nest Suburbanites 60 0.7% $72,300 $160,300Suburban Achievers 145 1.7% $70,100 $108,100

Subtotal: 270 3.2%

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 0 0.0%

Cross-Training Couples 0 0.0%Exurban Suburbanites 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 0 0.0%





2008 Household Classification by Market GroupsCuyahoga County, Ohio

Household Type/ Estimated EstimatedGeographic Designation Number Share

Empty Nesters& Retirees 162,525 42.6%

Metropolitan Cities 57,910 15.2%Small Cities/Satellite Cities 11,920 3.1%

Metropolitan Suburbs 81,770 21.4%Town & Country/Exurbs 10,925 2.9%

Traditional &Non-Traditional Families 120,780 31.7%

Metropolitan Cities 78,880 20.7%Small Cities/Satellite Cities 4,275 1.1%

Metropolitan Suburbs 29,735 7.8%Town & Country/Exurbs 7,890 2.1%

YoungerSingles & Couples 98,270 25.8%

Metropolitan Cities 30,950 8.1%

Small Cities/Satellite Cities 6,775 1.8% Metropolitan Suburbs 53,795 14.1%Town & Country/Exurbs 6,750 1.8%

Total: 381,575 100.0%

Total County Households: 536,020

Classified Households As A ShareOf Total County Households: 71.2%

Estimated Median Income: $43,700Estimated National Median Income: $50,200

Estimated Median Home Value: $136,700Estimated National Median Home Value: $178,600







Estimated EstimatedEmpty Nesters Median Median& Retirees 162,525 42.6% Income Home Value

Metropolitan CitiesUrban Establishment 12,160 3.2% $120,200 $334,600

Cosmopolitan Couples 15,715 4.1% $77,000 $200,900Multi-Ethnic Retirees 30,035 7.9% $55,700 $103,300

Subtotal: 57,910 15.2%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesCosmopolitan Elite 2,885 0.8% $106,000 $208,200

Middle-Class Move-Downs 9,035 2.4% $70,000 $113,200Subtotal: 11,920 3.1%

Metropolitan SuburbsOld Money 7,805 2.0% $156,100 $424,800

Affluent Empty Nesters 16,635 4.4% $98,100 $201,400Suburban Establishment 16,360 4.3% $98,000 $200,900

Mainstream Retirees 16,455 4.3% $71,900 $138,200Middle-American Retirees 24,515 6.4% $67,600 $104,000

Subtotal: 81,770 21.4%

Town & Country/ExurbsSmall-Town Establishment 7,140 1.9% $117,400 $245,900

New Empty Nesters 1,105 0.3% $101,000 $152,600RV Retirees 2,520 0.7% $77,700 $112,200

Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 160 0.0% $75,900 $103,200Subtotal: 10,925 2.9%







Estimated EstimatedTraditional & Median MedianNon-Traditional Families 120,780 31.7% Income Home Value

Metropolitan CitiesFull-Nest Urbanites 31,265 8.2% $89,200 $180,900

Multi-Cultural Families 47,615 12.5% $48,500 $86,300Subtotal: 78,880 20.7%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesUnibox Transferees 2,810 0.7% $114,000 $207,800

Multi-Ethnic Families 1,465 0.4% $70,100 $114,100Subtotal: 4,275 1.1%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 3,720 1.0% $163,600 $339,700

Nouveau Money 3,520 0.9% $145,000 $265,700Late-Nest Suburbanites 8,290 2.2% $102,000 $206,400Full-Nest Suburbanites 6,420 1.7% $98,700 $159,100

Blue-Collar Button-Downs 7,785 2.0% $69,300 $104,000Subtotal: 29,735 7.8%

Town & Country/Exurbs

Ex-Urban Elite 5,335 1.4% $145,500 $269,600Full-Nest Exurbanites 1,250 0.3% $106,100 $145,300New-Town Families 1,305 0.3% $79,800 $103,800

Small-Town Families 0 0.0%Subtotal: 7,890 2.1%







Estimated EstimatedYounger Median MedianSingle & Couples 98,270 25.8% Income Home Value

Metropolitan Citiese-Types 5,950 1.6% $114,900 $350,500

New Bohemians 10,595 2.8% $87,900 $270,000Urban Achievers 14,405 3.8% $62,600 $190,900

Subtotal: 30,950 8.1%

Small Cities/Satellite Cities

The VIPs 1,985 0.5% $98,300 $207,700Twentysomethings 2,575 0.7% $68,800 $121,700Small-City Singles 2,215 0.6% $54,500 $102,400

Subtotal: 6,775 1.8%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Entrepreneurs 4,775 1.3% $140,300 $294,200

Fast-Track Professionals 3,765 1.0% $101,200 $207,700Upscale Suburban Couples 12,985 3.4% $92,500 $153,400

No-Nest Suburbanites 18,405 4.8% $69,300 $104,000Suburban Achievers 13,865 3.6% $67,100 $131,000

Subtotal: 53,795 14.1%

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 3,935 1.0% $118,800 $209,000

Cross-Training Couples 2,425 0.6% $80,800 $136,400Exurban Suburbanites 390 0.1% $60,500 $85,400

Subtotal: 6,750 1.8%





Households With The PotentialTo Move Within The City Of South Euclid In 2008

Household Classification By Market GroupsCity of South Euclid, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Household Type/ Estimated Share of Geographic Designation Number Potential Potential

Empty Nesters& Retirees 3,535 180 18.0%

Metropolitan Cities 2,755 130 13.0%Small Cities/Satellite Cities 0 0 0.0%

Metropolitan Suburbs 780 50 5.0%Town & Country/Exurbs 0 0 0.0%

Traditional &Non-Traditional Families 4,375 590 59.0%



YoungerSingles & Couples 590 230 23.0%

Metropolitan Cities 320 120 12.0%Small Cities/Satellite Cities 0 0 0.0%


Total: 8,500 1,000 100.0%









Estimated Share of Number Potential Potential


Metropolitan CitiesUrban Establishment 475 50 5.0%

Cosmopolitan Couples 1,425 60 6.0%Multi-Ethnic Retirees 855 20 2.0%

Subtotal: 2,755 130 13.0%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesCosmopolitan Elite 0 0 0.0%

Middle-Class Move-Downs 0 0 0.0%Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%

Metropolitan SuburbsOld Money 0 0 0.0%

Affluent Empty Nesters 180 10 1.0%Suburban Establishment 280 20 2.0%

Mainstream Retirees 180 10 1.0%Middle-American Retirees 140 10 1.0%

Subtotal: 780 50 5.0%

Town & Country/ExurbsSmall-Town Establishment 0 0 0.0%

New Empty Nesters 0 0 0.0%RV Retirees 0 0 0.0%

Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 0 0 0.0%Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%









Metropolitan CitiesFull-Nest Urbanites 3,590 470 47.0%

Multi-Cultural Families 345 40 4.0%Subtotal: 3,935 510 51.0%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesUnibox Transferees 0 0 0.0%

Multi-Ethnic Families 0 0 0.0%Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 10 0 0.0%

Nouveau Money 0 0 0.0%Late-Nest Suburbanites 220 30 3.0%Full-Nest Suburbanites 120 20 2.0%

Blue-Collar Button-Downs 90 30 3.0%Subtotal: 440 80 8.0%

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Elite 0 0 0.0%

Full-Nest Exurbanites 0 0 0.0%New-Town Families 0 0 0.0%

Small-Town Families 0 0 0.0%Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%









Metropolitan Citiese-Types 125 40 4.0%

New Bohemians 110 40 4.0%Urban Achievers 85 40 4.0%

Subtotal: 320 120 12.0%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesThe VIPs 0 0 0.0%

Twentysomethings 0 0 0.0%Small-City Singles 0 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Entrepreneurs 0 0 0.0%

Fast-Track Professionals 50 20 2.0%Upscale Suburban Couples 15 0 0.0%

No-Nest Suburbanites 60 10 1.0%

Suburban Achievers 145 80 8.0%Subtotal: 270 110 11.0%

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 0 0 0.0%

Cross-Training Couples 0 0 0.0%Exurban Suburbanites 0 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%





Households With The PotentialTo Move To The City Of South Euclid In 2008

Summary: Appendix Two, Tables 1 Through 4Cities of Cleveland Heights, University Heights, Lyndhurst,and Richmond Heights, Cuyoahoga County, Ohio

Household Type/ Cleveland University RichmondGeographic Designation Heights Heights Lyndhurst Heights Total

Empty Nesters& Retirees 10 10 30 10 60

Metropolitan Cities 10 10 0 0 20Small Cities/Satellite Cities 0 0 20 0 20

Metropolitan Suburbs 0 0 10 10 20Town & Country/Exurbs 0 0 0 0 0

Traditional &Non-Traditional Families 20 10 0 10 40



YoungerSingles & Couples 70 30 20 30 150



Total: 100 50 50 50 250Percent: 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 100.0%







Cleveland University RichmondHeights Heights Lyndhurst Heights Total


Metropolitan CitiesUrban Establishment 10 10 0 0 20

Cosmopolitan Couples 0 0 0 0 0Multi-Ethnic Retirees 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: 10 10 0 0 20

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesCosmopolitan Elite 0 0 0 0 0

Middle-Class Move-Downs 0 0 20 0 20Subtotal: 0 0 20 0 20

Metropolitan SuburbsOld Money 0 0 0 0 0

Affluent Empty Nesters 0 0 0 0 0Suburban Establishment 0 0 0 0 0

Mainstream Retirees 0 0 10 10 20Middle-American Retirees 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: 0 0 10 10 20

Town & Country/ExurbsSmall-Town Establishment 0 0 0 0 0

New Empty Nesters 0 0 0 0 0RV Retirees 0 0 0 0 0

Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0









Metropolitan CitiesFull-Nest Urbanites 20 10 0 0 30

Multi-Cultural Families 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal: 20 10 0 0 30

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesUnibox Transferees 0 0 0 0 0

Multi-Ethnic Families 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 0 0 0 0 0

Nouveau Money 0 0 0 0 0Late-Nest Suburbanites 0 0 0 0 0Full-Nest Suburbanites 0 0 0 0 0

Blue-Collar Button-Downs 0 0 0 10 10Subtotal: 0 0 0 10 10

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Elite 0 0 0 0 0

Full-Nest Exurbanites 0 0 0 0 0New-Town Families 0 0 0 0 0

Small-Town Families 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0









Metropolitan Citiese-Types 10 20 0 0 30

New Bohemians 20 10 0 0 30Urban Achievers 40 0 0 0 40

Subtotal: 70 30 0 0 100

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesThe VIPs 0 0 0 0 0

Twentysomethings 0 0 10 0 10Small-City Singles 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: 0 0 10 0 10

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Entrepreneurs 0 0 0 0 0

Fast-Track Professionals 0 0 0 0 0Upscale Suburban Couples 0 0 0 0 0

No-Nest Suburbanites 0 0 10 0 10

Suburban Achievers 0 0 0 30 30Subtotal: 0 0 10 30 40

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 0 0 0 0 0

Cross-Training Couples 0 0 0 0 0Exurban Suburbanites 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0






Household Classification By Market GroupsBalance of Cuyahoga County, Ohio



Metropolitan Cities 45,165 30 3.0%Small Cities/Satellite Cities 10,025 20 2.0%

Metropolitan Suburbs 76,540 90 9.0%Town & Country/Exurbs 10,925 10 1.0%




YoungerSingles & Couples 89,840 570 57.0%



Total: 341,405 1,000 100.0%

Total County Households: 492,465{Balance of County}


{Balance of County}









Metropolitan CitiesUrban Establishment 7,510 10 1.0%

Cosmopolitan Couples 10,825 10 1.0%Multi-Ethnic Retirees 26,830 10 1.0%

Subtotal: 45,165 30 3.0%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesCosmopolitan Elite 2,690 0 0.0%

Middle-Class Move-Downs 7,335 20 2.0%Subtotal: 10,025 20 2.0%

Metropolitan SuburbsOld Money 7,475 10 1.0%

Affluent Empty Nesters 15,635 10 1.0%Suburban Establishment 15,180 20 2.0%

Mainstream Retirees 14,005 10 1.0%Middle-American Retirees 24,245 40 4.0%

Subtotal: 76,540 90 9.0%

Town & Country/ExurbsSmall-Town Establishment 7,140 10 1.0%

New Empty Nesters 1,105 0 0.0%RV Retirees 2,520 0 0.0%

Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 160 0 0.0%Subtotal: 10,925 10 1.0%










Multi-Cultural Families 46,260 110 11.0%Subtotal: 68,000 160 16.0%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesUnibox Transferees 2,770 10 1.0%

Multi-Ethnic Families 1,415 10 1.0%Subtotal: 4,185 20 2.0%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 3,620 0 0.0%

Nouveau Money 3,495 10 1.0%Late-Nest Suburbanites 7,950 20 2.0%Full-Nest Suburbanites 6,240 20 2.0%

Blue-Collar Button-Downs 7,530 40 4.0%Subtotal: 28,835 90 9.0%

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Elite 5,335 10 1.0%

Full-Nest Exurbanites 1,250 0 0.0%New-Town Families 1,305 0 0.0%

Small-Town Families 0 0 0.0%Subtotal: 7,890 10 1.0%









Metropolitan Citiese-Types 3,835 20 2.0%

New Bohemians 8,520 60 6.0%Urban Achievers 12,390 110 11.0%

Subtotal: 24,745 190 19.0%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesThe VIPs 1,925 10 1.0%

Twentysomethings 2,395 20 2.0%Small-City Singles 2,165 20 2.0%

Subtotal: 6,485 50 5.0%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Entrepreneurs 4,535 20 2.0%

Fast-Track Professionals 3,535 20 2.0%Upscale Suburban Couples 12,720 60 6.0%

No-Nest Suburbanites 17,775 50 5.0%

Suburban Achievers 13,295 150 15.0%Subtotal: 51,860 300 30.0%

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 3,935 20 2.0%

Cross-Training Couples 2,425 10 1.0%Exurban Suburbanites 390 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 6,750 30 3.0%






Summary: Appendix Two, Tables 5 Through 8Lorain, Summit, Lake, and Medina Counties, Ohio

Household Type/ Lorain Summit Lake MedinaGeographic Designation County County County County Total










Total: 100 100 100 100 400Percent: 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 100.0%







Lorain Summit Lake MedinaCounty County County County Total


Metropolitan CitiesUrban Establishment 0 0 0 0 0

Cosmopolitan Couples 0 0 0 0 0Multi-Ethnic Retirees 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesCosmopolitan Elite 0 0 0 0 0

Middle-Class Move-Downs 0 0 10 0 10Subtotal: 0 0 10 0 10

Metropolitan SuburbsOld Money 0 0 0 0 0

Affluent Empty Nesters 0 0 0 0 0Suburban Establishment 0 0 0 0 0

Mainstream Retirees 0 0 0 0 0Middle-American Retirees 0 0 10 0 10

Subtotal: 0 0 10 0 10

Town & Country/ExurbsSmall-Town Establishment 0 0 0 0 0

New Empty Nesters 10 0 0 10 20RV Retirees 0 0 0 0 0

Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 0 0 0 0 0Subtotal: 10 0 0 10 20









Metropolitan CitiesFull-Nest Urbanites 0 0 0 0 0

Multi-Cultural Families 0 10 0 0 10Subtotal: 0 10 0 0 10

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesUnibox Transferees 0 0 0 10 10

Multi-Ethnic Families 10 0 10 10 30Subtotal: 10 0 10 20 40

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 0 0 0 0 0

Nouveau Money 0 0 0 0 0Late-Nest Suburbanites 0 0 0 0 0Full-Nest Suburbanites 10 0 0 0 10

Blue-Collar Button-Downs 10 10 10 0 30Subtotal: 20 10 10 0 40

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Elite 0 10 0 0 10

Full-Nest Exurbanites 0 0 0 10 10New-Town Families 10 0 0 0 10

Small-Town Families 0 0 0 10 10Subtotal: 10 10 0 20 40









Metropolitan Citiese-Types 0 0 0 0 0

New Bohemians 0 0 0 0 0Urban Achievers 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: 0 0 0 0 0

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesThe VIPs 0 0 0 10 10

Twentysomethings 10 10 10 10 40Small-City Singles 10 10 10 10 40

Subtotal: 20 20 20 30 90

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Entrepreneurs 0 0 0 0 0

Fast-Track Professionals 0 0 0 0 0Upscale Suburban Couples 0 10 10 0 20

No-Nest Suburbanites 10 10 10 0 30

Suburban Achievers 10 20 20 0 50Subtotal: 20 40 40 0 100

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 0 10 0 10 20

Cross-Training Couples 10 0 0 10 20Exurban Suburbanites 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal: 10 10 0 20 40






Household Classification By Market GroupsAll Other U.S. Counties

Household Type/ Share of Geographic Designation Potential Potential

Empty Nesters& Retirees 80 14.5%

Metropolitan Cities 10 1.8%Small Cities/Satellite Cities 10 1.8%


Traditional &Non-Traditional Families 160 29.1%






Total: 550 100.0%







Share of Potential Potential

Empty Nesters& Retirees 80 14.5%

Metropolitan CitiesUrban Establishment 10 1.8%

Cosmopolitan Couples 0 0.0%Multi-Ethnic Retirees 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 10 1.8%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesCosmopolitan Elite 0 0.0%

Middle-Class Move-Downs 10 1.8%Subtotal: 10 1.8%

Metropolitan SuburbsOld Money 10 1.8%

Affluent Empty Nesters 0 0.0%Suburban Establishment 0 0.0%

Mainstream Retirees 0 0.0%Middle-American Retirees 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 10 1.8%

Town & Country/ExurbsSmall-Town Establishment 10 1.8%

New Empty Nesters 10 1.8%RV Retirees 10 1.8%

Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 20 3.6%Subtotal: 50 9.1%








Traditional &Non-Traditional Families 160 29.1%

Metropolitan CitiesFull-Nest Urbanites 10 1.8%

Multi-Cultural Families 10 1.8%Subtotal: 20 3.6%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesUnibox Transferees 10 1.8%

Multi-Ethnic Families 20 3.6%Subtotal: 30 5.5%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 0 0.0%

Nouveau Money 10 1.8%Late-Nest Suburbanites 10 1.8%Full-Nest Suburbanites 20 3.6%

Blue-Collar Button-Downs 20 3.6%Subtotal: 60 10.9%

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Elite 10 1.8%

Full-Nest Exurbanites 10 1.8%New-Town Families 20 3.6%

Small-Town Families 10 1.8%Subtotal: 50 9.1%









Metropolitan Citiese-Types 20 3.6%

New Bohemians 30 5.5%Urban Achievers 40 7.3%

Subtotal: 90 16.4%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesThe VIPs 20 3.6%

Twentysomethings 30 5.5%Small-City Singles 30 5.5%

Subtotal: 80 14.5%

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Entrepreneurs 20 3.6%

Fast-Track Professionals 10 1.8%Upscale Suburban Couples 20 3.6%

No-Nest Suburbanites 10 1.8%

Suburban Achievers 40 7.3%Subtotal: 100 18.2%

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 20 3.6%

Cross-Training Couples 10 1.8%Exurban Suburbanites 10 1.8%

Subtotal: 40 7.3%





Households With The PotentialTo Move Within/To The City Of South Euclid In 2008

Summary: Appendix One, Tables 4 Through 8City of South Euclid; Cities of Cleveland Heights, University Heights, Lyndhurst, and Richmond Heights;Balance of Cuyahoga County; Lorain, Summit, Lake, and Medina Counties, Ohio; All Other U.S. Counties

Household Type/ City of Adjacent Balance of Regional All OtherGeographic Designation South Euclid Cities Cuyahoga Draw Area US Counties Total

Empty Nesters& Retirees 180 60 150 40 80 510

Metropolitan Cities 130 20 30 0 10 190Small Cities/Satellite Cities 0 20 20 10 10 60

Metropolitan Suburbs 50 20 90 10 10 180Town & Country/Exurbs 0 0 10 20 50 80

Traditional &Non-Traditional Families 590 40 280 130 160 1,200



Younger

Singles & Couples 230 150 570 230 310 1,490



Total: 1,000 250 1,000 400 550 3,200Percent: 31.2% 7.8% 31.2% 12.5% 17.2% 100.0%







City of Adjacent Balance of Regional All OtherSouth Euclid Cities Cuyahoga Draw Area US Counties Total


Metropolitan CitiesUrban Establishment 50 20 10 0 10 90

Cosmopolitan Couples 60 0 10 0 0 70Multi-Ethnic Retirees 20 0 10 0 0 30

Subtotal: 130 20 30 0 10 190

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesCosmopolitan Elite 0 0 0 0 0 0

Middle-Class Move-Downs 0 20 20 10 10 60Subtotal: 0 20 20 10 10 60

Metropolitan SuburbsOld Money 0 0 10 0 10 20

Affluent Empty Nesters 10 0 10 0 0 20Suburban Establishment 20 0 20 0 0 40

Mainstream Retirees 10 20 10 0 0 40

Middle-American Retirees 10 0 40 10 0 60Subtotal: 50 20 90 10 10 180

Town & Country/ExurbsSmall-Town Establishment 0 0 10 0 10 20

New Empty Nesters 0 0 0 20 10 30RV Retirees 0 0 0 0 10 10

Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 0 0 0 0 20 20Subtotal: 0 0 10 20 50 80









Metropolitan CitiesFull-Nest Urbanites 470 30 50 0 10 560

Multi-Cultural Families 40 0 110 10 10 170Subtotal: 510 30 160 10 20 730

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesUnibox Transferees 0 0 10 10 10 30

Multi-Ethnic Families 0 0 10 30 20 60Subtotal: 0 0 20 40 30 90

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nouveau Money 0 0 10 0 10 20Late-Nest Suburbanites 30 0 20 0 10 60Full-Nest Suburbanites 20 0 20 10 20 70

Blue-Collar Button-Downs 30 10 40 30 20 130

Subtotal: 80 10 90 40 60 280

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Elite 0 0 10 10 10 30

Full-Nest Exurbanites 0 0 0 10 10 20New-Town Families 0 0 0 10 20 30

Small-Town Families 0 0 0 10 10 20Subtotal: 0 0 10 40 50 100








YoungerSingles & Couples 230 150 570 230 310 1,490

Metropolitan Citiese-Types 40 30 20 0 20 110

New Bohemians 40 30 60 0 30 160Urban Achievers 40 40 110 0 40 230

Subtotal: 120 100 190 0 90 500

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesThe VIPs 0 0 10 10 20 40

Twentysomethings 0 10 20 40 30 100Small-City Singles 0 0 20 40 30 90

Subtotal: 0 10 50 90 80 230

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Entrepreneurs 0 0 20 0 20 40

Fast-Track Professionals 20 0 20 0 10 50Upscale Suburban Couples 0 0 60 20 20 100

No-Nest Suburbanites 10 10 50 30 10 110Suburban Achievers 80 30 150 50 40 350Subtotal: 110 40 300 100 100 650

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 0 0 20 20 20 60

Cross-Training Couples 0 0 10 20 10 40Exurban Suburbanites 0 0 0 0 10 10

Subtotal: 0 0 30 40 40 110





Tenure (Renter/Buyer) ProfileHouseholds With The Potential

To Move Within/To The City Of South Euclid In 2008City of South Euclid; Cities of Cleveland Heights, University Heights, Lyndhurst, and Richmond Heights;Balance of Cuyahoga County; Lorain, Summit, Lake, and Medina Counties, Ohio; All Other U.S. Counties

. . Rental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Household Type/ Above Entry- First-Time Move-Up/ Move-

Geographic Designation Median Level Move-Up Lateral Down Total







YoungerSingles & Couples 510 210 310 340 120 1,490



Total: 900 360 770 730 440 3,200Percent: 28.1% 11.2% 24.1% 22.8% 13.7% 100.0%







. . Rental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Empty Nesters Above Entry- First-Time Move-Up/ Move-

& Retirees Median Level Move-Up Lateral Down Total



Subtotal: 50 0 0 80 60 190





Mainstream Retirees 10 0 0 10 20 40Middle-American Retirees 10 0 10 20 20 60

Subtotal: 30 0 10 70 70 180


New Empty Nesters 0 0 0 20 10 30RV Retirees 0 0 0 0 10 10

Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 0 0 10 10 0 20Subtotal: 0 0 10 40 30 80

Total: 100 0 30 200 180 510Percent: 19.6% 0.0% 5.9% 39.2% 35.3% 100.0%







. . Rental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Traditional & Above Entry- First-Time Move-Up/ Move-

Non-Traditional Families Median Level Move-Up Lateral Down Total


Multi-Cultural Families 80 20 40 20 10 170Subtotal: 200 100 240 110 80 73


Multi-Ethnic Families 20 10 20 0 10 60Subtotal: 20 10 40 0 20 90

Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nouveau Money 0 0 10 10 0 20Late-Nest Suburbanites 10 10 20 10 10 60Full-Nest Suburbanites 10 10 30 10 10 70

Blue-Collar Button-Downs 40 20 40 20 10 130Subtotal: 60 40 100 50 30 280

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Elite 0 0 20 0 10 30Full-Nest Exurbanites 0 0 10 10 0 20

New-Town Families 10 0 10 10 0 30Small-Town Families 0 0 10 10 0 20

Subtotal: 10 0 50 30 10 100

Total: 290 150 430 190 140 1,200Percent: 24.2% 12.5% 35.8% 15.8% 11.7% 100.0%







. . Rental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Younger Above Entry- First-Time Move-Up/ Move-

Singles & Couples Median Level Move-Up Lateral Down Total



Subtotal: 210 80 90 90 30 500



Subtotal: 110 30 40 50 0 230



No-Nest Suburbanites 70 10 10 20 0 110Suburban Achievers 40 60 100 100 50 350

Subtotal: 170 90 150 170 70 65Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 10 10 20 10 10 60


Subtotal: 20 10 30 30 20 110

Total: 510 210 310 340 120 1,490Percent: 34.2% 14.1% 20.8% 22.8% 8.1% 100.0%





Purchase Propensity By Housing TypeHouseholds With The Potential


Multi- Single-. . Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Household Type/ . . Attached . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .Geographic Designation All Ranges All Ranges Low-Range Mid-Range High-Range Total




Traditional &Non-Traditional Families 100 240 250 210 110 910



YoungerSingles & Couples 500 280 110 60 30 980



Total: 710 610 470 340 170 2,300Percent: 30.9% 26.5% 20.4% 14.8% 7.4% 100.0%








Empty Nesters . . Attached . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .& Retirees All Ranges All Ranges Low-Range Mid-Range High-Range Total



Subtotal: 50 40 20 20 10 140





Mainstream Retirees 10 10 10 0 0 30Middle-American Retirees 10 10 20 10 0 50

Subtotal: 40 30 50 20 10 150Town & Country/Exurbs

Small-Town Establishment 0 0 0 10 10 20New Empty Nesters 10 10 10 0 0 30

RV Retirees 0 0 10 0 0 10Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 0 0 10 10 0 20

Subtotal: 10 10 30 20 10 80

Total: 110 90 110 70 30 410Percent: 26.8% 22.0% 26.8% 17.1% 7.3% 100.0%








Younger . . Attached . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .Singles & Couples All Ranges All Ranges Low-Range Mid-Range High-Range Total



Subtotal: 200 70 10 10 0 290



Subtotal: 50 50 20 0 0 120



No-Nest Suburbanites 10 20 10 0 0 40

Suburban Achievers 190 90 20 10 0 310Subtotal: 230 150 50 30 20 480

Town & Country/ExurbsEx-Urban Power Couples 10 10 10 10 10 50


Subtotal: 20 10 30 20 10 90

Total: 500 280 110 60 30 980Percent: 51.0% 28.6% 11.2% 6.1% 3.1% 100.0%





Households With The PotentialTo Move To Cedar Center In 2008

City of South Euclid; Cities of Cleveland Heights, University Heights, Lyndhurst, and Richmond Heights;Balance of Cuyahoga County; Lorain, Summit, Lake, and Medina Counties, Ohio; All Other U.S. Counties




Cosmopolitan Couples 50 0 10 0 0 60Subtotal: 90 20 20 0 10 140

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesMiddle-Class Move-Downs 0 20 20 10 10 60

Subtotal: 0 20 20 10 10 60

Metropolitan SuburbsAffluent Empty Nesters 10 0 10 0 0 20

Subtotal: 10 0 10 0 0 20










Subtotal: 50 30 50 0 10 140










New Bohemians 40 30 30 0 20 120Subtotal: 80 60 40 0 40 220

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesThe VIPs 0 0 10 10 20 40Subtotal: 0 0 10 10 20 40



Subtotal: 20 0 50 20 50 140






To Move To Cedar Center In 2008City of South Euclid; Cities of Cleveland Heights, University Heights, Lyndhurst, and Richmond Heights;Balance of Cuyahoga County; Lorain, Summit, Lake, and Medina Counties, Ohio; All Other U.S. Counties






Subtotal: 20 0 10 10 20 60


Subtotal: 0 0 0 10 10 20

Total: 60 0 10 70 80 220Percent: 27.3% 0.0% 4.5% 31.8% 36.4% 100.0%










Subtotal: 30 20 50 20 20 140

Total: 30 20 50 20 20 140Percent: 21.4% 14.3% 35.7% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0%














Subtotal: 50 10 40 30 10 140

Total: 150 60 90 70 30 400Percent: 37.5% 15.0% 22.5% 17.5% 7.5% 100.0%





New Unit Purchase Propensity By Housing TypeHouseholds With The Potential













Total: 180 140 90 70 40 520Percent: 34.6% 26.9% 17.3% 13.5% 7.7% 100.0%












Subtotal: 10 10 10 10 0 40


Subtotal: 10 0 10 0 0 20

Total: 50 30 40 30 10 160Percent: 31.3% 18.8% 25.0% 18.8% 6.3% 100.0%








Traditional & . . Attached . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non-Traditional Families All Ranges All Ranges Low-Range Mid-Range High-Range Total


Subtotal: 10 30 30 30 10 110

Total: 10 30 30 30 10 110Percent: 9.1% 27.3% 27.3% 27.3% 9.1% 100.0%














Subtotal: 20 30 10 10 20 90

Total: 120 80 20 10 20 250

Percent: 48.0% 32.0% 8.0% 4.0% 8.0% 100.0%





Households With The PotentialTo Move To The Library Site In 2008


Household Type/ City of Adjacent Balance of Regional All OtherGeographic Designation South Euclid Cities Cuyahoga Draw Area US Counties Total










Total: 350 80 230 40 150 850Percent: 41.2% 9.4% 27.1% 4.7% 17.6% 100.0%










Subtotal: 120 30 50 0 10 210


Subtotal: 0 0 10 10 10 30

Metropolitan SuburbsNouveau Money 0 0 10 0 10 20

Late-Nest Suburbanites 30 0 20 0 10 60Subtotal: 30 0 30 0 20 80










Subtotal: 40 30 20 0 20 110



Fast-Track Professionals 20 0 20 0 10 50Subtotal: 20 0 40 0 30 90






To Move To The Library Site In 2008City of South Euclid; Cities of Cleveland Heights, University Heights, Lyndhurst, and Richmond Heights;Balance of Cuyahoga County; Lorain, Summit, Lake, and Medina Counties, Ohio; All Other U.S. Counties

. . Rental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Household Type/ Above Entry- First-Time Move-Up/ Move-

Geographic Designation Median Level Move-Up Lateral Down Total










Total: 180 80 180 240 170 850Percent: 21.2% 9.4% 21.2% 28.2% 20.0% 100.0%













Subtotal: 10 0 0 40 30 80


New Empty Nesters 0 0 0 20 10 30Subtotal: 0 0 0 30 20 50

Total: 50 0 0 140 100 290

Percent: 17.2% 0.0% 0.0% 48.3% 34.5% 100.0%










Subtotal: 40 30 80 30 30 210


Subtotal: 0 0 20 0 10 30



Total: 50 40 130 50 50 320Percent: 15.6% 12.5% 40.6% 15.6% 15.6% 100.0%










Subtotal: 40 20 20 20 10 110




Total: 80 40 50 50 20 240Percent: 33.3% 16.7% 20.8% 20.8% 8.3% 100.0%


















Total: 150 190 120 120 90 670Percent: 22.4% 28.4% 17.9% 17.9% 13.4% 100.0%













Subtotal: 20 20 20 0 10 70


New Empty Nesters 10 10 10 0 0 30Subtotal: 10 10 10 10 10 50

Total: 70 60 50 30 30 240Percent: 29.2% 25.0% 20.8% 12.5% 12.5% 100.0%








Traditional & . . Attached . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Detached . . . . . . . . . . . . .Non-Traditional Families All Ranges All Ranges Low-Range Mid-Range High-Range Total


Subtotal: 20 50 40 40 20 170


Subtotal: 0 10 0 10 10 30



Total: 20 80 50 70 50 270Percent: 7.4% 29.6% 18.5% 25.9% 18.5% 100.0%










Subtotal: 40 20 0 10 0 70




Total: 60 50 20 20 10 160Percent: 37.5% 31.3% 12.5% 12.5% 6.3% 100.0%




METHODOLOGY : A N A NALYSIS OF R ESIDENTIAL M ARKET POTENTIALThe City of South Euclid, Cuyahoga County, OhioNovember, 2008

Appendix Two Tables

o



Appendix Two, Table 1 Page 1 of 4


Household Classification By Market GroupsCity of Cleveland Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio











Total: 18,165 100 100.0%












Cosmopolitan Couples 2,880 0 0.0%Multi-Ethnic Retirees 2,250 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 7,820 10 10.0%






Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%












Metropolitan Citiese-Types 1,115 10 10.0%

New Bohemians 1,580 20 20.0%Urban Achievers 1,925 40 40.0%

Subtotal: 4,620 70 70.0%



Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%







Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%






Household Classification By Market GroupsCity of University Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio











Total: 4,655 50 100.0%












Cosmopolitan Couples 585 0 0.0%Multi-Ethnic Retirees 100 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 2,170 10 20.0%






Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%













Multi-Cultural Families 35 0 0.0%Subtotal: 1,220 10 20.0%



















Subtotal: 1,265 30 60.0%



Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%







Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%






Household Classification By Market GroupsCity of Lyndhurst, Cuyahoga County, Ohio



Metropolitan Cities 0 0 0.0%Small Cities/Satellite Cities 1,895 20 40.0%

Metropolitan Suburbs 2,465 10 20.0%Town & Country/Exurbs 0 0 0.0%

Traditional &Non-Traditional Families 250 0 0.0%






Total: 5,555 50 100.0%













Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%





Mainstream Retirees 1,240 10 20.0%Middle-American Retirees 0 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 2,465 10 20.0%












Metropolitan CitiesFull-Nest Urbanites 0 0 0.0%

Multi-Cultural Families 0 0 0.0%Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%



















Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%



Subtotal: 290 10 20.0%







Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%






Household Classification By Market GroupsCity of Richmond Heights, Cuyahoga County, Ohio











Total: 3,295 50 100.0%













Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%





Mainstream Retirees 1,030 10 20.0%Middle-American Retirees 130 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 1,985 10 20.0%














Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%



Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%




Suburban Achievers 420 30 60.0%Subtotal: 1,010 30 60.0%



Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%






Household Classification By Market GroupsLorain County, Ohio











Total: 76,915 100 100.0%













Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%




Affluent Empty Nesters 1,785 0 0.0%Suburban Establishment 2,530 0 0.0%

Mainstream Retirees 1,460 0 0.0%Middle-American Retirees 5,640 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 12,155 0 0.0%



Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 2,595 0 0.0%Subtotal: 14,465 10 10.0%











Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%

Small Cities/Satellite CitiesThe VIPs 1,325 0 0.0%


Subtotal: 4,015 20 20.0%


Fast-Track Professionals 610 0 0.0%Upscale Suburban Couples 2,280 0 0.0%




Cross-Training Couples 2,700 10 10.0%Exurban Suburbanites 1,370 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 5,500 10 10.0%






Household Classification By Market GroupsSummit County, Ohio











Total: 157,160 100 100.0%












Multi-Cultural Families 12,260 10 10.0%Subtotal: 15,835 10 10.0%



Metropolitan SuburbsThe Social Register 1,150 0 0.0%















New Bohemians 505 0 0.0%Urban Achievers 1,425 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 2,140 0 0.0%



Subtotal: 6,530 20 20.0%


Fast-Track Professionals 1,450 0 0.0%Upscale Suburban Couples 4,695 10 10.0%




Cross-Training Couples 4,170 0 0.0%Exurban Suburbanites 2,065 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 11,680 10 10.0%






Household Classification By Market GroupsLake County, Ohio











Total: 69,135 100 100.0%













Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%



Subtotal: 4,315 20 20.0%


Fast-Track Professionals 255 0 0.0%Upscale Suburban Couples 2,485 10 10.0%




Cross-Training Couples 1,375 0 0.0%Exurban Suburbanites 690 0 0.0%

Subtotal: 3,000 0 0.0%






Household Classification By Market Groups Medina County, Ohio




Metropolitan Suburbs 430 0 0.0%Town & Country/Exurbs 12,220 10 10.0%






Metropolitan Suburbs 825 0 0.0%Town & Country/Exurbs 6,560 20 20.0%

Total: 53,295 100 100.0%













Subtotal: 0 0 0.0%






Subtotal: 430 0 0.0%



Blue-Collar Empty Nesters 1,795 0 0.0%Subtotal: 12,220 10 10.0%















Blue-Collar Button-Downs 170 0 0.0%Subtotal: 1,305 0 0.0%



Small-Town Families 3,095 10 10.0%Subtotal: 11,590 20 20.0%





[email protected] • www.ZVA.cc


A SSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS —

Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the data contained within this analysis.

Demographic and economic estimates and projections have been obtained from government

agencies at the national, state, and county levels. Market information has been obtained from

sources presumed to be reliable, including developers, owners, and/or sales agents. However,

this information cannot be warranted by Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc. While the

methodology employed in this analysis allows for a margin of error in base data, it is assumed

that the market data and government estimates and projections are substantially accurate.

Absorption scenarios are based upon the assumption that a normal economic environment will

prevail in a relatively steady state during development of the subject property. Absorption

paces are likely to be slower during recessionary periods and faster during periods of recovery

and high growth. Absorption scenarios are also predicated on the assumption that the product

recommendations will be implemented generally as outlined in this report and that the

developer will apply high-caliber design, construction, marketing, and management techniques

to the development of the property.

Recommendations are subject to compliance with all applicable regulations. Relevant

accounting, tax, and legal matters should be substantiated by appropriate counsel.

o




908 735-6336 www.ZVA.cc • [email protected]


R IGHTS AND STUDY O WNERSHIP—

Zimmerman/Volk Associates, Inc. retains all rights, title and interest in the methodology andtarget market descriptions contained within this study. The specific findings of the analysis are

the property of the client and can be distributed at the client’s discretion.

o

Method Appendix

Documents

Transcript of Method Appendix