CLEVELAND, Ohio – Some of the hottest urban neighborhoods in Cleveland and similar areas across Northeast Ohio are sick of being revitalized.

Having seen a wave of new apartment projects fueled by in-migration of millennials and empty nesters after decades of white flight, longtime residents in parts of Cleveland, Lakewood, Cleveland Heights and other communities are saying: Enough.

At least a half-dozen recent examples show how opponents in some of the region’s more desirable neighborhoods are pushing back against projects they probably would have welcomed after the 2008-09 recession.

“We’re definitely seeing it across a lot of communities,” said Michael Panzica, a principal of Hemingway Development, whose Washington Inn Housing proposal for a 50-unit apartment building in Cleveland’s Little Italy failed on May 9 to win a certificate of appropriateness from the Cleveland Landmarks Commission.

Tapping the brakes on redevelopment might seem like a victory for public participation in the development process.

But in a Midwest industrial region with shrinking cities and declining population, rigid opposition to redevelopment in dense, walkable neighborhoods served by transit may be unwise.

It could stifle growth where it’s still desperately needed to reverse decades of sprawl in outlying counties, and to avert the need to raise taxes on declining populations in Cleveland and Cuyahoga County suburbs.

It’s hard to say how widespread the new anti-development mood is, but the rejection of Hemingway’s Little Italy project appears to be part of a trend:

- On May 7, voters in Hudson voted by a 52-48 margin against a developer’s plan for an 18-acre expansion of the First and Main shopping and retail center, a virtual new downtown built in 2004.

- In Lakewood, residents stand opposed to a $40 million apartment project that would fill parking lots along Detroit Avenue.

- In Cleveland Heights, the proposed $75 million Top of Hill development, with 275 apartments, has been stalled since February over opposition to its design, which, to be sure, needs to improve.

- In Cleveland’s Hingetown neighborhood, residents are expressing regrets over construction of the 11-story, $60 million Church & State apartment project.

- Also, in Cleveland, a Dunham Tavern Museum board member and museum members are suing board leaders to block the Cleveland Foundation’s proposal to relocate its headquarters to part of the property some see as a potential “central park” for the Midtown area.

Objections range from the amount of public subsidy in a given project, to criticisms of the boxy and bland design typical of some developments.

Opposition is also stoked by fear of gentrification – displacement of longtime residents through higher rents or property taxes.

Apart from these and other details, the common thread is that the projects in question would add density – the number of housing units or square feet per acre.

But concerns over higher density need to be balanced against the overall shrinkage of places like Cleveland and its inner-ring suburbs.

Tom Bier, a senior fellow at Cleveland State University’s Levin College of Urban Affairs who has studied regional housing dynamics for decades, said at the May 9 meeting on the Little Italy project that Cleveland’s residential tax base fell by $573 million, or 8.5%, between 2000 and 2018, although it has lately begun to rebound.

He strongly supported the Hemingway proposal, saying that Cleveland needs to keep building new housing in places where demand is strong, and while economic conditions are good.

Nevertheless, the city’s planning director, Freddy Collier, a member of the Landmarks Commission, said the administration of Mayor Frank Jackson was opposed to the Hemingway project.

“We support development and new investment coming in, but we are also supportive of people who live in a community,” he said in an interview after the meeting.

For the record, the Little Italy project looked well designed. It would fill a parking lot behind houses that front Murray Hill and Random roads, and its scale looked respectful next to the historic, late 19th-century stone mansion that houses the Washington Place Bistro & Inn at 2203 Cornell Road.

Responding to prior critiques from Little Italy residents, Hemingway and its partner, Property Advisors Group, shaved the project from 67 to 50 apartments and sculpted it to be less visible from surrounding streets.

As a case study, the project shows that even when developers do a good job with design, neighborhoods may still say no.

Panzica said he and his partners are trying to find out on a “relatively quick timeline’’ whether it would make sense to revise the design again, or walk away.

If interest rates rise or the economy weakens, the project won’t be feasible, he said.

“I think we need to be welcoming the growth when we can get it,” he said.

Those words could apply equally well to other urban neighborhoods across the region where redevelopment is facing new resistance.

By all means, cities should push for better design and better deals. But in a region that’s still shrinking, pushing developers to the point of withdrawing from urban hot zones could be something those same neighborhoods turn out to regret, soon.