Cincy1

Just a small correction - I think I inadvertently sold Cleveland a little short. The earlier set of numbers was for Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, but apparently the site has two views and this is for Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria: 1991 2,217,767 0.7 15,680 43,223 26,756 1,166 -9,377 1992 2,231,693 0.6 13,926 34,315 21,744 2,013 -8,012 1993 2,241,490 0.4 9,797 33,559 21,863 2,083 -10,986 1994 2,247,782 0.3 6,292 32,179 22,641 1,703 -11,720 1995 2,252,024 0.2 4,242 31,401 22,706 2,141 -9,922 1996 2,255,726 0.2 3,702 30,991 22,325 2,316 -10,382 1997 2,255,379 0.0 -347 30,502 22,665 2,021 -14,026 1998 2,254,404 0.0 -975 30,350 22,095 1,864 -14,821 1999 2,252,739 -0.1 -1,665 30,449 22,583 1,940 -13,063 2000 2,250,871 -0.1 -1,868 - - - - 2001 2,247,498 -0.1 -3,373 37,446 28,328 5,020 -17,240 2002 2,244,618 -0.1 -2,880 28,365 22,864 4,070 -12,381 2003 2,242,653 -0.1 -1,965 28,088 22,459 3,880 -11,358 2004 2,236,770 -0.3 -5,883 27,962 22,154 3,534 -14,491 2005 2,229,539 -0.3 -7,231 27,794 22,394 3,247 -15,968

I found a real estate site that had detailed this information. I had no idea metro Cincinnati had lost population a few times in the mid 70's. I copied from '91 to present, when they include all the stats. This really illustrates how the different components affect growth, and while many east coast cities, for example, are losing domestic population they more than make up for it in a international migration. Going right to left, population, percentage increase, total increase, births, deaths, net international migration, and net domestic migration. At least for 2005 Cincy is getting closer to the right side of the ledger for domestic migration. I also added Cleveland and Columbus. Cincinnati 1991 1,871,593 1.4 26,705 37,243 19,567 841 6,682 1992 1,891,232 1.0 19,639 29,532 16,186 836 4,167 1993 1,912,760 1.1 21,528 28,985 16,334 886 6,665 1994 1,926,253 0.7 13,493 28,225 17,013 712 187 1995 1,940,325 0.7 14,072 28,278 16,644 1,131 842 1996 1,953,606 0.7 13,281 27,863 17,065 1,178 1,022 1997 1,970,246 0.9 16,640 27,912 17,145 1,275 3,818 1998 1,985,506 0.8 15,260 28,058 17,066 1,287 2,125 1999 1,999,126 0.7 13,620 28,062 17,143 1,345 458 2000 2,009,632 0.5 10,506 - - - - 2001 2,026,218 0.8 16,586 37,002 21,764 3,634 -1,463 2002 2,034,678 0.4 8,460 28,349 18,030 2,882 -4,127 2003 2,046,078 0.6 11,400 28,763 17,592 2,725 -1,833 2004 2,056,843 0.5 10,765 29,233 17,462 2,474 -2,747 2005 2,070,441 0.7 13,598 29,457 17,626 2,262 -492 Cleveland 1991 2,117,512 0.7 15,305 41,419 25,500 1,175 -9,325 1992 2,131,036 0.6 13,524 32,892 20,716 2,017 -8,110 1993 2,140,398 0.4 9,362 32,152 20,814 2,068 -11,136 1994 2,146,303 0.3 5,905 30,883 21,519 1,699 -12,018 1995 2,150,203 0.2 3,900 29,993 21,633 2,134 -10,016 1996 2,153,598 0.2 3,395 29,660 21,221 2,287 -10,534 1997 2,152,676 0.0 -922 29,167 21,620 2,018 -14,360 1998 2,151,568 -0.1 -1,108 29,005 21,047 1,850 -14,757 1999 2,149,943 -0.1 -1,625 29,107 21,526 1,937 -12,918 2000 2,148,143 -0.1 -1,800 - - - - 2001 2,144,558 -0.2 -3,585 35,765 26,827 4,965 -17,261 2002 2,141,634 -0.1 -2,924 27,136 21,740 4,024 -12,309 2003 2,139,568 -0.1 -2,066 26,911 21,361 3,835 -11,373 2004 2,133,778 -0.3 -5,790 26,792 21,090 3,493 -14,283 2005 2,126,318 -0.3 -7,460 26,596 21,348 3,207 -15,970 Columbus 1991 1,434,940 2.1 29,762 28,711 13,262 990 9,650 1992 1,458,981 1.7 24,041 22,594 11,074 1,133 8,351 1993 1,481,280 1.5 22,299 22,863 10,381 1,087 5,624 1994 1,500,144 1.3 18,864 22,603 11,624 1,077 4,069 1995 1,518,671 1.2 18,527 22,648 11,524 1,241 3,001 1996 1,531,611 0.9 12,940 22,338 11,806 1,635 1,659 1997 1,551,212 1.3 19,601 22,786 11,887 1,673 3,290 1998 1,574,663 1.5 23,451 22,692 11,872 1,666 2,934 1999 1,596,012 1.4 21,349 22,802 11,905 1,799 5,422 2000 1,612,694 1.0 16,682 - - - - 2001 1,639,208 1.6 26,514 31,328 15,684 6,245 4,159 2002 1,655,234 1.0 16,026 24,835 12,598 5,040 -1,596 2003 1,675,010 1.2 19,776 25,077 12,737 4,804 2,255 2004 1,690,721 0.9 15,711 25,323 12,796 4,366 -675 2005 1,708,625 1.1 17,904 25,374 12,971 3,975 1,473 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census

This does indeed include Kentucky and appears to simply consist of Cincinnati's metro counties (Indiana as well). The site definitely has some interesting information -this is Cincy's report: http://lmi.state.oh.us/PROJ/projections/MSA/Cincinnati.pdf They do not have detailed information of where Warren (or any other) county's growth is occurring, but I suspect much of it is in Mason, Deerfield Township and maybe Loveland so I do not see an issue with all of Warren being included in Cincy's numbers. It would be interesting to see how much growth is truly associated with Cincinnati versus Dayton's suburbs.

Maybe they are living at the back of the main post office. That is interesting, but now that you mention it I think the Queensgate could be a prime area for development as it is the one of the flattest areas of the city. The street grid is already in place so this would be a great area for re-use if current tenants/businesses move. I agree with the neighborhood breakdown. You hear of Pendleton or O'Bryonville or CUF - they sometimes talk about a part of a larger neighborhood or group some together. It would be nice to always have the apples to apples comparison.

It would be interesting to get the exact boundaries they used as they obviously only included parts of OTR, the West End, and the East End. As of 2000, OTR had 7,600, the West End had 8,100, and the East End had 1,692. They seem to have more clearly pointed out the parts of the latter two, but OTR is still unclear. http://www.cincinnatichamber.com/pdf/pop/city_pop.pdf

I say take the positive press and enjoy it. We certainly know the Enquirer has no problems highlighting the negative, and does not care about getting the facts completely accurate. If this helps in creating a different perception, great. I do think the article distinguishes between Downtown and Greater Downtown, which is probably a more accurate depiction anyway considering the boundaries other downtowns use. I also would not put too much wait into negative Nick's comments about including OTR and lower income residents. They obviously only included parts (recently developed projects maybe) since OTR has a population of 7,000 by itself. I have always seen Downtown proper listed around 3,500, and regardless of the exact numbers, the population is going up.

As of 2000, OTR had a population of 7638, Mt. Auburn was 6,516, and the West End was 8115. With the boundaries given for Downtown Columbus, it would not be a stretch to include all or some of these. I think Indy gives an oddly large boundary for their downtown as well.

With Convergys opening up a lot of space, and essentially sending Cincinnati Bell jobs to Norwood (where additional Convergys jobs came from) I am not sure this will be built in the near future. I do, however, like San Marco and his enthusiasm for wanting to develop Downtown. I think if anyone can get this done now, it will be someone like him. Maybe he could find a company in Atlanta looking to move as they seem to be the biggest raiders. I also like that we get periodic updates from him instead of the typical announcement from a developer who disappears.

I currently live in Anderson (yes I'm a sellout) - I actually had a shotgun Victorian in East Walnut Hills until May of 2000, but my wife was ready for something newer and larger. Unfortunately, it was a little too expensive to stay closer to the city, but as far as suburbs go it is not too far from Mt. Lookout and Hyde Park for night life and restaurants. And we're close to Lunken. I plan on returning to the city in the next few years, but it will take a little more money for what we would like. Oddly, the people we bought our current house from bought the same sized house in Hyde Park with a small yard, and it was twice as much. Anyway, I grew up in Clifton, attended Ohio State and have lived in the Eden Park area as well. And yes, I am a big booster of Cincinnati. I did not mean to get Jim Tarbell in any trouble - his comment was tongue in cheek, and he is one of the true urbanists we have so we need to stay on his side.

I was one of the people who voted for Broadway Commons. It was obviously the better choice, where it would have been part of the fabric of the city and built sooner with views of Mt. Adams. I am glad to see all the loft development going on, especially around Main Street in OTR, but I can only imagine what the neighborhood would be today if the stadium had been built there. I think we need to look at what it got us on the river. Plenty of business for Northern Kentucky, no Banks development, and although it is not as isolated as Riverfront (I hate to call it Cinergy) the Machine Room had to close during the off-season because it is set off from the city streets. I remember when Broadway failed, I saw Jim Tarbell at the Esquire theatre and mentioned to him it only won in Clifton, Hyde Park, and Mt. Lookout. His reply, "well we know where all the intelligent people live." A pretty good response.